Method for Producing Pluripotent Stem Cells

ABSTRACT

The present invention allows a TET1 protein to be more stably expressed in human pluripotent stem cells than in the past by, inter alia, substituting the second amino acid from the amino terminal of a TET1 protein with a different amino acid. Furthermore upon differentiation of said pluripotent stem cells, it is possible to quickly eliminate the expression of, inter alia, NANOG, which is an inhibitor of differentiation and promote the expression of factors related to differentiation by introducing a variant TET1 protein to a pluripotent stem cell. The present invention provides a method for manufacturing pluripotent stem cells with increased differentiation potential, and a substance that is useful to said method.

TECHNICAL FIELD

The present invention relates to a method of producing pluripotent stem cells (PSCs), more specifically to a method of producing pluripotent stem cells with enhanced differentiation efficacies. Also included in this invention are the proteins used to realize this process.

BACKGROUND ART

PSCs are defined as cell entities which have both the capacity to differentiate toward multiple cell lineages non-identical to themselves (pluripotency) and a capability of producing a cell having an identical capacity to the originated cell as a daughter cell when they divide (self-renewal), which is considered to include embryonic stem (ES) cell and induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cell. And because of these characteristics, ES cell and iPS cell are strongly anticipated to play important roles in regenerative medicine and/or drug screening.

However, it has been recently reported that mouse PSCs and human PSCs do not share some of their fundamental properties and moreover, human PSCs are generally considered to have lower differentiation capabilities when compared to mouse PSCs.

Mouse PSCs can be challenged experimentally for their pluripotency with some accuracy. For example, mouse ES cells can be injected into a cavity of blastocyst where the injected cells intermingle with the host inner cell mass (ICM), followed by a normal development of ES cell-derived cells in an embryo, which is called as chimera formation. The fact that mouse ES cells can synchronize their development with a timing-matched ICM is a good verdict for pluripotency. In this case, as development further proceeds, it is known that part of the injected ES cells might also contribute to the germline. This germline transmission means that these cells can contribute to the next generation and further corroborates the compatibility as normal cells in a more generic term.

There also exists an “ultimate” way to show pluripotency. When we inhibit the first cell cleavage of a mouse fertilized egg transiently and culture it in a culture dish, we can obtain a tetraploid blastocyst. The tetraploid blastocyst looks almost normal but will not continue development into embryo further. Therefore, just by putting tetraploid embryos back to a uterus of pseudo-pregnant female mouse would not produce a live pup. But if we inject stem cells with differentiation capabilities into these tetraploid blastocysts and let them contribute to the chimera formation as mentioned above, the PSCs now would be fully responsible to contribute to development as they are the sole cells with normal karyotype. In this way, we can obtain a completely PSC-derived body in a single generation. This methodology is called the tetraploid-complementation assay and the obtained pups are called as all-iPS mice, according to the PSCs injected. This multiple tests enable strict assessment of pluripotencies in mouse and mouse iPS cells have been shown to exhibit strict pluripotencies using the battery of such multiple tests.

In sharp contrast, human pluripotencies cannot be scrutinized in these fashions because of ethical issues. An alternative way to show pluripotency in human contexts is teratoma formation. When stem cells are transplanted into nude mice subcutaneously, these cells when supported by the host blood supply, do differentiate at random to form an organ. The formed stem cell-derived tumor mass will be pathologically examined to find ectoderm, mesoderm and endoderm, and thereby, the originated stem cells are qualified as pluripotent. However, this methodology whereby we assess pluripotency by teratoma formation is inherently problematic. That is, even if the original stem cells have insufficient efficacy of differentiation, any differentiation efficacy above zero could be judged as “pluripotency” if three germ layers are observed. Teratoma assay would judge the pluripotency without considering the existence of residual undifferentiated cells within the teratoma. With the current paradigm of teratoma assay, the mere presence of a limited number of bona fide pluripotent cells within the cell population would be sufficient and the current teratoma assay has no implication about the quantitative trait of pluripotency. For example, mouse iPS cells derived using c-Myc, albeit showing three-germ-layer differentiation in teratoma assays, were prone to give iPS cell-derived tumors upon chimera formation. An alternative to teratoma assay would be to independently direct cell differentiation toward the three germ layers. However, there is no “golden standard” in any cell differentiation protocol making this strategy inapplicable for quantitative analysis.

There is also a more profound and fundamental problem with human PSCs. This is about the possible absence of an ideal PSC for human which bears the capacity to be amenable to equally robust differentiation toward all the cell lineages. Osafune et al. have reported that no two human ES cell lines showed quasi-identical gene expression profile, and thus each ES cell line has own propensity to differentiate into a specific germ layer, and further, suggested that human ES cells do not have sufficient pluripotency in terms of quantitative evaluation (non-patent literature 1).

It took 17 years after the discovery of mouse ES cell to establish human ES cell. In retrospect, the major reason for this delay was that human ES cell could not be established in the same way as in the mouse ES cell. Although mouse ES cells are dependent to leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF) for their self renewal, human ES cell cannot show self renewal ability in a medium added with LIF. Thomson et al. found that human ES cell requires fibroblast growth factor (FGF) and Activin/Nodal for its maintenance (non-patent literature 2). These differential requirements for mouse and human ES cell self renewal diversify into different intracellular signaling pathways: JAK/STAT signaling and SMAD2/3 signaling for mouse and human ES cell, respectively. The currently major view is that SMAD2/3 signaling in human PSCs activates the expression of NANOG. In parallel, SMAD2/3 signaling is a critical factor for the mesendoderm development in mammals and therefore a high concentration of Activin is required for proper mesendoderm differentiation of PSCs. It is therefore interesting to note that the current human PSC self renewal signaling crossovers with the signal which would induce its mesendodermal differentiation.

Mouse and human ES cells both originate from blastocysts. However, most probably owing to their difference in the culture conditions, their characteristics significantly differ. A major contrast is albeit mouse ES cells retain characteristics of their originated blastocyst inner cells, human ES cells are more akin to the primitive ectoderm of the epiblast, which appears after some development of the blastocyst. Then, the epiblast stem cell (EpiSC) was established directly from mouse epiblasts using culture condition equivalent to human ES cells (non-patent literature 3 and 4). This had led the stem cell biologists to discriminate two stages of pluripotency. One is the blastocyst-type pluripotency, represented by mouse ES as well as iPS cells and the other is the epiblast-type pluripotency, which includes human ES, human iPS cells and mouse EpiSCs. The former pluripotency is now called “naive” and the latter “primed”, originally coined by Smith et al. (non-patent literature 5).

Naive and primed pluripotencies share the three germ layer differentiation capabilities and teratoma assay-compatibilities upon transplantation into nude mouse. However, naive PSCs are more similar to the earlier stage (blastocyst) of development closer to fertilized ovum, are easier to be established in culture and possess fuller pluripotency in that an individual body completely derived from these cells can be generated. In contrast, primed PSCs are more akin to the epiblast, an embryonic stage following the blastocyst, and are empirically tougher to establish. Additionally, as described above, primed PSCs have clear differentiation propensities (non-patent literature 1). Finally, it has been recognized that primed PSCs poorly synchronize their development with early embryo and therefore do not produce chimera, and thus it is known that primed human PSCs are inferior to mouse naive PSCs in differentiation efficacy including pluripotency.

In practicing regenerative medicine and drug development, human PSCs are being anticipated to exert their high differentiation capabilities in order to supply various cell types, tissues and organogenesis. In this line, it seems desirable to enhance differentiation efficacy of primed human PSCs. However, this kind of innovation remains to be developed.

PRIOR ART DOCUMENTS Non-Patent Literature

-   -   [Non-patent literature 1] Osafune, K. et al., Nat Biotechnol.         2008, 26, 313-315.     -   [Non-patent literature 2] Thomson, J. A. et al., Science 1998,         282, 1145-7.     -   [Non-patent literature 3] Brons, I. et al., Nature 2007, 448,         191-5.     -   [Non-patent literature 4] Tesar, P. J. et al., Nature 2007, 448,         196-9.     -   [Non-patent literature 5] Nichols, J., Cell Stem Cell 2009, 4,         487-92.

DISCLOSURE OF THE INVENTION Problems to be Solved by the Invention

The present invention has been made to address the other problems referred to in the cited art above, and objects of the invention are to provide a method for producing PSCs with improved differentiation capabilities and also substances which enable such production.

Measures to Solve the Referred Problems

In order to achieve the purposes, the present inventors have comparatively studied the differences in the characteristics of mouse PSCs and human PSCs.

Mouse PSCs bear characteristics close to inner clump of cells of the pre-implantation blastocyst. In contrast, human PSCs are most akin to the primitive ectodermal cells of the post-implantation epiblast. We can assume by this difference between mouse and human pluripotencies that human PSCs is inherently inferior to mouse PSCs for its differentiation capabilities.

There is two distinct phases of reprogramming during development. One occurs during the transition from a fertilized egg to a pre-implantation embryo (which we shall refer to as “reprogramming during early development”) and another happens post-implantation during the establishment of the germ cell lineage (“germline reprogramming”). From this viewpoint, the present inventors examined factors expressed in the “germline reprogramming” to reset cell memories acquired from the blastocyst to the epiblast stage, and thereby the present inventors have come up with TET1.

It has been shown that TET1 protein is an enzyme involved in hydroxylation of methyl group of 5-methylcytosine (5mC) to convert 5mC to 5-hydroxymethylcytosine (5hmC). It has been recently shown that TET1 is involved in demethylation of 5mC to cytosine. It is also supposed that TET1 protein can competitively inhibit the binding of the DNA methyltransferases such as DNMT1, DNMT3a and DNMT3b to their target DNA methylation sites leading to a hypomethylated genome. Therefore, TET1 protein function is strongly suggested in the process of DNA demethylation and/or the maintenance of a hypomethylated state. Moreover in mice, TET1 protein expression can be observed in the development of early embryo from the fertilized egg to the blastocyst onward, in the primordial germ cells and in ES cells established from blastocysts. Coupled with its function in DNA demethylation, TET1 protein is strongly suggested to be involved in reprogramming processes. However, the role of TET1 protein in the human is totally unexplored.

Given the situation, the present inventors investigated the expression of TET1 at the transcriptional as well as translational levels. As a result, the present inventors found that human iPS cells, just like mouse ES cells, abundantly express TET1 mRNA. The present inventors have also identified two novel TET1 mRNA (cDNA) sequences which differed from the known sequences in terms of the presence or absence of a part of exons and therefore the present inventors succeeded in finding novel splice variants for TET1.

However, to their surprises, the present inventors were unable to detect TET1 at the protein level in human iPS cells, unlike in mouse ES cells. The inventors have deduced that this differential expressivity of TET1 protein between mouse PSCs and human PSCs might be causal for the observed difference in the differentiation capacities of these two cell entities and have therefore investigated a way to overexpress TET1 protein in human PSCs. In this line of investigations, the inventors have found that placing a peptide-tag at the wild-type TET1 protein's N-terminus allowed them to stably express TET1 protein in human PSCs. The inventors have further demonstrated that simply replacing its second amino acid to another one renders the protein more stable.

The inventors succeeded in forcing TET1 expression in hiPSCs by exploiting the mutant TET1 protein (modified TET1 protein) which can be stably expressed in hiPSCs, which led them to notice that expression of T and SOX17, mesendodermal markers usually expressed in conventional hiPSCs, was missing. This showed that the mutant TET1 protein can cancel some of the differentiation biases (propensities), an inherent nature of the current human iPSCs.

When mutant TET1-introduced hiPSCs were induced toward neuroectoderm (ectoderm), the expression of OCT3/4 and NANOG which operate in resisting cell differentiation were rapidly diminished. Especially, NANOG operates by counteracting differentiation signals to most kinds of cells and therefore, the swift down-regulation of this factor upon mutant-TET1 introduction could be a reason for the observed decrease in the differentiation resistance by this factor and the enhanced pluripotency. Moreover, the inventors demonstrated that mutant-TET1 introduction renders hiPSCs more amenable to neural differentiation judged by the enhanced up-regulation of the neural markers SOX2 and SOX1. Especially, SOX1 up-regulation was mostly sensitive to the mutant TET1-introduction as shown by the 60-fold upregulation of SOX1 when compared to their parental control cells produced without TET1 introduction, which suggests that differentiation capacity to neurons of PSCs increased about 60-fold by introduction of this protein.

In corroboration with these transcription factors' regulations, conditions which would poorly produce neurons from conventional TET1-non-expressing hiPSC were able to induce neurons at 100% efficiency for mutant TET1-expressing iPSCs. In addition to this ectodermal differentiation, the inventors showed that the mutant-TET1 introduction allowed them to increase the efficacy of definitive endoderm differentiation.

Even more surprisingly, the effect on differentiation efficacy of TET1 was also exerted when the second amino acid was simply replaced with another amino acid and furthermore, even when the dioxygenase catalytic domain was omitted. This indicates the observed effect of TET1 introduction does not rely on the DNA demethylating activity that the dioxygenase domain is responsible for but rather on the DNA-binding properties of TET1.

The present inventors further demonstrate that the mutant-TET1, when introduced together with the so-called reprogramming factors (Oct3/4, Sox2, Klf4 and c-Myc) into somatic cells not only enhance the differentiation efficacy of the obtained iPSCs but also the yield (production efficacy) of such iPSC clones.

The inventors also found that the TET1-introduced iPSCs have significantly reduced levels of various cancer-related markers (such as GPC4, GAGE2B and GAGE7) when compared to the parental cell line which indicates that, in addition to improving the differentiation potentials (and/or the production efficiency of such cells), TET1-introduced iPSCs bear enhanced safety.

This invention was completed according to the mentioned experimental results obtained by the inventors and provides a method which allows the production of PSCs with enhanced efficacies for cell differentiation. Furthermore, this invention also provides materials to practice the production of PSCs such as mutant TET1 proteins, novel TET1 protein isoforms which can be used as raw material for these mutant TET1 proteins as well as nucleic acids which code for such proteins. More in details, the present invention provides the following aspects.

-   -   <1> A method for producing pluripotent stem cells, comprising:         introducing at least one molecule selected from the group         consisting of (a) to (c) into pluripotent stem cells (PSCs) or         somatic cells which are to be induced toward PSCs;     -   (a) TET1 protein,     -   (b) a nucleic acid that encodes TET1 protein, and     -   (c) a vector into which a nucleic acid that encodes TET1 protein         has been inserted.     -   <2> The method of <1>, wherein said TET1 protein is a mutant         TET1 protein which has enhanced stability as compared to a wild         type TET1 protein.     -   <3> The method of <2>, wherein said mutant TET1 protein is a         mutant TET1 protein in which the second amino acid from their         N-terminus differs from the wild-type TET1's second amino acid         from their N-terminus.     -   <4> The method of <2> or <3>, wherein said mutant TET1 protein         lacks its dioxygenase domain.     -   <5> The method of <1>, wherein said TET1 protein is a protein         consisting of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 2, 4 or 6.     -   <6> A mutant TET1 protein which has enhanced stability as         compared to a wild type TET1 protein.     -   <7> The protein of <6>, wherein the second amino acid from their         N-terminus differs from the wild-type TET1's second amino acid         from their N-terminus.     -   <8> The protein of <7>, which lacks its dioxygenase domain.     -   <9> A protein consisting of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID         NO: 4 or 6.     -   <10> A nucleic acid encoding the protein as described in any one         of <6> to <9>.     -   <11> A vector into which the nucleic acid of <10> has been         inserted.     -   <12> A pluripotent stem cell (PSC) or somatic cell which is to         be induced toward PSC into which at least one molecule selected         from the group consisting of (a) to (c) has been introduced;     -   (a) TET1 protein,     -   (b) a nucleic acid that encodes TET1 protein, and     -   (c) a vector into which a nucleic acid that encodes TET1 protein         has been inserted.

The Effects of the Invention

The invention accordingly provides a way to enhance the differentiation efficacy of PSCs. Furthermore, the invention can also allow increasing the production efficacy of iPS cell reprogramming. Moreover, it is also possible to produce highly safe PSCs with suppressed tumorigenicity.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 The picture shows the result of the western blotting for analyzing the expression amount of TET1 protein in individual human iPS cells (#58, #237 and #105) with or without proteasome inhibitor (MG132).

FIG. 2 The graph shows the result of the quantitative RT-PCR for analyzing the expression amount of TET1 mRNA in individual human iPS cells (#58, #237 and #105) with or without proteasome inhibitor (MG132). On the vertical axis are represented relative mean values of each sample in triplicates when normalized against GAPDH expression values of the same sample. Error bars represent standard deviations (so are in FIGS. 5, 8 to 23).

FIG. 3 The structures of the three TET1 proteins expressed in human iPS cells. At the top are shown the TET1 gene coding region (CDS) from the sequence deposited as Refseq and protein structures encoded by the CDS. At the middle and bottom are the two TET1 splice variants' CDSs and protein structures encoded by the CDSs.

FIG. 4 The picture shows the result of the western blot for analyzing the expression amount of TET1 in control human iPS cell line which expresses a mock vector (pCAG-IP), a human iPS cell line expressing an N-terminally FLAG-tagged (NFLAG TETOE) and a human iPS cell line expressing a C-terminally FLAG-tagged (CFLAG TETOE).

FIG. 5 The graph shows the result of quantitative RT-PCR for analyzing the expression amount of TET1 mRNA in NFLAG TET1OE, CFLAG TET1OE and pCAG-IP.

FIG. 6 Schematic figure showing the structures of the mutant TET1 proteins which were used to show the relationship between the stability and the modification in TET1 protein. At the top is shown the CDS of the human TET1 gene for the variant 2 and the protein structure encoded by the CDS. Second from the top is shown the structure for a fusion protein of the N-terminal portion of the human TET1 protein (the protein consisting of 670 amino acids) fused to GFP (#93). At the third position from the top is shown the structure for a fusion protein of the N-terminal portion of the human TET1 protein (the protein consisting of 670 amino acids) with the second amino acid serine converted to glycine, fused to GFP (#94). At the fourth position from the top is shown the structure for a fusion protein of the N-terminal portion of the human TET1 protein (the protein consisting of 670 amino acids) with a FLAG tag inserted between the first methionine and the second serine, fused to GFP (#95).

FIG. 7 A histogram showing FACS result obtained from the hiPSCs bearing the GFP-fusion protein depicted in FIG. 6 independently (#93, #94 and #95). The histogram depicted as “hiPSC” represents a negative control using human iPS cells with no GFP expression.

FIG. 8 The graph shows the time course of TET1 mRNA expression during the neural induction of control human iPS cell (depicted as “hiPSC” in the figure) and human iPS cell expressing N-terminally FLAG-tagged TET1 protein (“TET1o/e-hiPSC”). The vertical axis of the graph represents the days after the commencement of neural induction (also in FIGS. 9 to 23).

FIG. 9 The graph shows the time course of DNMT3A mRNA expression during the neural induction of hiPSC and human iPS cell expressing N-terminally FLAG-tagged TET1 protein.

FIG. 10 The graph shows the time course of DNMT3B mRNA expression during the neural induction of hiPSC and human iPS cell expressing N-terminally FLAG-tagged TET1 protein.

FIG. 11 The graph shows the time course of NANOG mRNA expression during the neural induction of hiPSC and human iPS cell expressing N-terminally FLAG-tagged TET1 protein.

FIG. 12 The graph shows the time course of OCT3/4 mRNA expression during the neural induction of hiPSC and human iPS cell expressing N-terminally FLAG-tagged TET1 protein.

FIG. 13 The graph shows the time course of SOX2 mRNA expression during the neural induction of hiPSC and human iPS cell expressing N-terminally FLAG-tagged TET1 protein.

FIG. 14 The graph shows the time course of SOX1 mRNA expression during the neural induction of hiPSC and human iPS cell expressing N-terminally FLAG-tagged TET1 protein.

FIG. 15 The graph shows the time course of NEUROGENIN1 mRNA expression during the neural induction of hiPSC and human iPS cell expressing N-terminally FLAG-tagged TET1 protein.

FIG. 16 The graph shows the time course of NEUROGENIN2 mRNA expression during the neural induction of hiPSC and human iPS cell expressing N-terminally FLAG-tagged TET1 protein.

FIG. 17 The graph shows the time course of NEUROD1 mRNA expression during the neural induction of hiPSC and human iPS cell expressing N-terminally FLAG-tagged TET1 protein.

FIG. 18 The graph shows the time course of ASCL1 mRNA expression during the neural induction of hiPSC and human iPS cell expressing N-terminally FLAG-tagged TET1 protein.

FIG. 19 The graph shows the time course of PAX6 mRNA expression during the neural induction of hiPSC and human iPS cell expressing N-terminally FLAG-tagged TET1 protein.

FIG. 20 The graph shows the time course of ZNF521 mRNA expression during the neural induction of hiPSC and human iPS cell expressing N-terminally FLAG-tagged TET1 protein.

FIG. 21 The graph shows the time course of OTX2 mRNA expression during the neural induction of hiPSC and human iPS cell expressing N-terminally FLAG-tagged TET1 protein.

FIG. 22 The graph shows the time course of T mRNA expression during the neural induction of hiPSC and human iPS cell expressing N-terminally FLAG-tagged TET1 protein.

FIG. 23 The graph shows the time course of SOX17 mRNA expression during the neural induction of hiPSC and human iPS cell expressing N-terminally FLAG-tagged TET1 protein.

FIG. 24 A micrograph of human iPS cells plated onto laminin-coated culture dishes after 12 days of neural induction. The picture was taken 14 days after the plating of the induced cells. The arrow in the picture shows the position where an aggregate of neuron's cell somata were formed.

FIG. 25 A micrograph of human iPS cell expressing N-terminally FLAG-tagged TET1 protein plated onto laminin-coated culture dishes after 12 days of neural induction. The picture was taken 14 days after the plating of the induced cells.

FIG. 26 The graph shows the time course of NANOG mRNA expression during the definitive endoderm induction of control human iPS cell (depicted as “hiPSC” in the figure) and human iPS cell expressing N-terminally FLAG-tagged TET1 protein (“TET1o/e-hiPSC”). The vertical axis represents a relative level obtained when the expression level in the human iPS cells before the differentiation induction is taken as 1. The horizontal axis of the graph represents the days after the commencement of definitive endoderm induction (also in FIGS. 27 to 29).

FIG. 27 The graph shows the time course of SOX17 mRNA expression during the definitive endoderm induction of hiPSC and human iPS cell expressing N-terminally FLAG-tagged TET1 protein.

FIG. 28 The graph shows the time course of HNF4A mRNA expression during the definitive endoderm induction of hiPSC and human iPS cell expressing N-terminally FLAG-tagged TET1 protein.

FIG. 29 The graph shows the time course of FOXA2 mRNA expression during the definitive endoderm induction of hiPSC and human iPS cell expressing N-terminally FLAG-tagged TET1 protein.

FIG. 30 The graph shows the time course of NANOG mRNA expression during the neural induction of human iPS cell bearing various transgenes: a mock vector expressing human iPS cell (pCAG-IP), human iPS cell expressing a fusion protein of the N-terminal portion of the human TET1 protein (the protein consisting of 670 amino acids) fused to GFP (#93), human iPS cell expressing a fusion protein of the N-terminal portion of the human TET1 protein (the protein consisting of 670 amino acids) with the second amino acid serine converted to glycine, fused to GFP (#94), and human iPS cell expressing N-terminally FLAG-tagged TET1 protein (full-length) (“TET1o/e-hiPSC”). The vertical axis represents a relative level obtained when the expression level in pCAG-IP before the differentiation induction is taken as 1. The horizontal axis of the graph represents the days after the commencement of neural induction (also in FIGS. 31 and 32).

FIG. 31 The graph shows the time course of SOX1 mRNA expression during the neural induction of human iPS cell bearing various transgenes: a mock vector expressing human iPS cell, human iPS cell a fusion protein of the N-terminal portion of the human TET1 protein (the protein consisting of 670 amino acids) fused to GFP, human iPS cell expressing a fusion protein of the N-terminal portion of the human TET1 protein (the protein consisting of 670 amino acids) with the second amino acid serine converted to glycine, fused to GFP, and human iPS cell expressing N-terminally FLAG-tagged TET1 protein (full-length). In the figure, the vertical axis represents certain relative values because the value of the mock vector expressing human iPS cells (pCAGIP) before the differentiation was below the detection level.

FIG. 32 The graph shows the time course of OTX2 mRNA expression during the neural induction of human iPS cell bearing various transgenes: a mock vector expressing human iPS cell (pCAG-IP), human iPS cell a fusion protein of the N-terminal portion of the human TET1 protein (the protein consisting of 670 amino acids) fused to GFP, human iPS cell expressing a fusion protein of the N-terminal portion of the human TET1 protein (the protein consisting of 670 amino acids) with the second amino acid serine converted to glycine, fused to GFP, and human iPS cell expressing N-terminally FLAG-tagged TET1 protein (full-length).

FIG. 33 Phase contrast micrographs of colonies composed of iPS cells of high quality (Frcs) and colonies composed of iPS cells of low quality (Prcs).

FIG. 34 The graph shows the cell proliferation curves for mock-vector introduced human iPS cells (“mv-iPSC”; same in FIG. 35 and FIG. 36) and human iPS cells with over-expression of N-terminal FLAG-tagged TET1 protein (“TET1-iPSC”; same in FIG. 35 and FIG. 36). The horizontal axis denotes days in culture.

FIG. 35 Histograms showing cell cycle profiles of mv-iPSC and TET1-iPSC analyzed using FACS. In the figure, cell number ratios for G1, S and G2 phase are shown in percentiles.

FIG. 36 Gene expression scattered plots of DNA microarray analysis showing genes whose expression differs between mv-iPSC and TET1-iPSC. DNA microarray analysis was performed on SurePrint G3 Human GE 8×60K v2 one-color platform (Agilent) and data analysis was done using 75-percentile shift method.

FIG. 37 A schematic drawing showing the transition from mouse ES cell's naïve stage to primed stage. From a naïve culture of mouse ES cells, leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF) and other agents preventing the transition to the naïve stage were removed and then said cells were transferred to FGF2 and Activin A (TGFβ/Nodal agonist) containing media which allow them to transition to the primed stage's status.

FIG. 38 The graph shows qPCR results which show up-regulation of epiblast markers during the naïve to primed transition. Each bar from left to right represents data of 0 hour, 24 hours and 48 hours after transition induction, respectively (The same applies to FIGS. 40 to 54).

FIG. 39 Schematic drawing of the stages of the transition to epiblast-like stem cells (EpiLC) from Tet1-knockdown (Tet1-KD) mouse ES cells. Tet1-KD mouse ES cells were established by introducing shRNA against Tet1 and by selecting for puromycin resistance (Ref.: K. Williams et al., Nature 473, 343 (May 19, 2011)).

FIG. 40 The graph shows the qPCR results for the naïve to primed transition of mouse ES cells showing the effect of Tet1 knockdown. Tet1KD denotes for mouse ES cells in which Tet1 was knockdown and GFPKD is for mouse ES cells introduced with GFP-targeting shRNA which are used as control ES cells. ICM stands for the results of analysis for transcription levels of ICM/naïve stage markers.

FIG. 41 The graph shows the results of qPCR data during the transition from the naïve to primed stage for the transcription levels of Tet1, Epiblast-related (Epi) and primitive endodermal (PE) markers by comparing Tet1-KD mouse ES cells (Tet1KD) and their control (GFP-KD) cells.

FIG. 42 The photograph shows the results of western blots for the protein levels of Tet1, Tet2, ICM markers and epiblast markers in Tet1-KD mouse ES cells (Tet1-KD) and GFP-KD mouse ES cells (GFP-KD). Of note, protein expression levels of naïve factors (such as Nanog, Esrrb, Tbx3 and Stat3) were largely maintained through the transition in Tet1-KD EpiLCs.

FIG. 43 The photograph shows the results of western blots for the protein expression levels of Stat3, Dnmt3a and Dnmt3b in the presence (JAKi+) or absence (JAKi−) of JAK inhibitor during the naïve to primed transition. As a JAKi, JAK Inhibitor I (Calbiochem, added at 1 μM) was used. For Dnmt3a, two bands appeared on the blots which correspond to v1 and v2 variants.

FIG. 44 The graph shows the qPCR results for Gata6 transcription levels upon naïve to primed transition in the presence (JAKi+) or absence (JAKi−) of JAK inhibitor.

FIG. 45 The graph shows the qPCR results showing Tet1 mRNA levels upon naïve to primed transition of mouse ES cells in the presence (MG132+) or absence (MG132−) of MG132.

FIG. 46 The photograph shows the results of western blots for the protein expression levels of Tet1 upon naïve to primed transition of mouse ES cells in the presence (MG132+) or absence (MG132−) of MG132. Numbers shown in the figure are TET1 expression amount normalized against the actin expression amount.

FIG. 47 Bisulfite sequencing results showing the DNA methylation statuses of the Tcl1 differentially methylated region (DMR) upon naïve to primed transition. Black circles denote for methylated (or hydroxymethylated) CpG sites and open (white) circles are for unmethylated (or unhydroxymethylated) CpG sites. Bisulfite sequencing of the selected CpG sites was performed according to H. Wu et al., Nature 473, 389 (May 19, 2011).

FIG. 48 Schematic drawing depicting the experimental scheme of the naïve to primed transition using Tet1/Prdm14 double knockdown mouse ES cells.

FIG. 49 The graph shows the qPCR results for Otx2 mRNA expression levels during the naïve to primed transition of Tet1/Prdm14 double knockdown mouse ES cells. “GFPKD GFPKD” is the control cell line used here in which only GFP-targeting shRNA was introduced, “GFPKD P14KD#1 to 3” are cell lines in which both GFP and Prdm14 are targeted by shRNA, “Tet1KD GFPKD” are cell lines in which both GFP and Tet1 are targeted by shRNA and “Tet1KD P14KD#1 to 3” are cell lines in which both Tet1 and Prdm14 are targeted by shRNA. (These notations are also valid for FIGS. 50 to 52.)

FIG. 50 The graph shows the qPCR results for Dnmt3a mRNA expression levels upon naïve to primed transition of Tet1/Prdm14 double knockdown mouse ES cells.

FIG. 51 The graph shows the qPCR results for Dnmt3b mRNA expression levels upon naïve to primed transition of Tet1/Prdm14 double knockdown mouse ES cells.

FIG. 52 The graph shows the qPCR results for Gata6 mRNA expression levels upon naïve to primed transition of Tet1/Prdm14 double knockdown mouse ES cells.

FIG. 53 The graph shows the qPCR results for Otx2 mRNA upon naïve to primed transition of mouse ES cells over-expressing Dnmt3a1 (3a1OE), Dnmt3a2 (3a2OE) and Dnmt3b (3bOE). “GFPKD pCAG-IH” is the control cell line in which a mock vector (pCAG-IH) and an shRNA targeting GFP are introduced, “GFPKD 3a1OE” is the cell line in which an shRNA targeting GFP and a Dnmt3a1-expressing pCAG-IH vector are introduced, “GFPKD 3a2OE” is the cell line in which an shRNA targeting GFP and a Dnmt3a2-expressing pCAG-IH vector are introduced, “GFPKD 3bOE” is the cell line in which an shRNA targeting GFP and a Dnmt3b-expressing pCAG-IH vector are introduced. “Tet1KD pCAG-IH” is a cell line in which an shRNA targeting Tet1 and a mock vector are introduced, “Tet1KD 3a1OE” is a cell line in which an shRNA targeting Tet1 and a pCAG-IH vector encoding Dnmt3a1 are introduced, “Tet1KD 3a2OE” is a cell line in which an shRNA targeting Tet1 and a pCAG-IH vector encoding Dnmt3a2 are introduced and “Tet1KD 3bOE” is a cell line in which an shRNA targeting Tet1 and a pCAG-IH vector encoding Dnmt3b are introduced. (These notations are also valid for FIG. 54.)

FIG. 54 The graph shows the qPCR results for Gata6 mRNA upon naïve to primed transition of mouse ES cells over-expressing Dnmt3a1 (3a1OE), Dnmt3a2 (3a2OE) and Dnmt3b (3bOE).

EMBODIMENTS FOR CARRYING OUT THE INVENTION

<The Method for Producing PSCs of this Invention>

This invention provides the methods for producing PSCs which comprises introducing at least one molecule selected from the group consisting of (a) to (c) into pluripotent stem cells (PSCs) or somatic cells which are to be induced toward PSCs;

(a) TET1 protein, (b) a nucleic acid that encodes TET1 protein, and (c) a vector into which a nucleic acid that encodes TET1 protein has been inserted.

Furthermore, according to the production method, PSCs with enhanced differentiation capacity can be produced. Furthermore, according to the production method, by introducing the TET1 protein etc. into the somatic cells, it becomes possible to produce iPS cells with higher efficacy. Moreover, it is also possible to produce highly safe PSCs with suppressed tumorigenicity.

In this invention, “pluripotent stem cell (PSC)” denotes for a cell with a dual capacity of being able to differentiate into multiple cell lineages different from itself (pluripotency) and at the same time being able to divide into daughter cells which bear the same capacity with itself (self renewal).

In this invention, “differentiation capacity” denotes for a cell capacity to change into a different kind of cell. And an “enhancement of differentiation efficacy” in this invention specifically denotes not only an increase of cell differentiation probability as monitored by increased differentiation marker expression (in case of neural induction the markers could be SOX2, SOX1, NEUROGENIN1, NEUROGENIN2, NEUROD1, ASCL1, PAX6, ZNF521 or OTX2) but also a significant repression of other cell lineage choice (in case where ectoderm specification is required such other lineage markers could be T and SOX17) as well as significant repression of factors which act to resist differentiation signals such as NANOG. As shown in the following examples, the differentiation capacities of a PSC are in a repressed state which can be expressed as differentiation resistance and also proper differentiation can be blocked by an inherent differentiation propensity toward an undesired cell fate. To this line, the present invention provides a way to cancel these robust differentiation resistance or propensity enabling a PSC to faithfully execute its pluripotency. In this way, when mentioning about the enhancement of differentiation capacity, this will automatically include an improvement in the pluripotency.

Candidate pluripotent stem cell lines where the invention could be applied to enhance the differentiation capacities includes embryonic stem cell (ES cell), epiblast stem cell (EpiSC), embryonal carcinoma cell (EC cell), embryonic germ cell (EG cell), multipotent germ stem cell (mGS cell) and MUSE cell (refer to Kuroda Y. et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 2010. 107, 8639-43), cells which can be obtained from various sources of the organism. Moreover, the list includes cells such as iPS cells which have been induced to obtain pluripotency artificially from somatic cells obtained from the organism.

There is no specific restriction for the source organism of these cells and examples thereof include human as well as non-human (mouse, rat, cattle, horse, porcine, goat, monkey, dog, cat, bird, etc.) animals.

PSCs can be staged either in an earlier developmental stage (blastocyst) where the corresponding PSCs are called naive PSCs or also in a developmental stage which appears after the blastocyst and called the epiblast in which case the PSCs are called primed PSCs. It is generally believed that the latter PSCs have lower differentiation capacities compared to the former PSCs. Therefore, it is conceivable that the production method presented in the invention will impact more the primed PSCs. Examples of primed PSCs in this context include ES cells and iPS cells from human, monkey, porcine, ovine, dog and cow and also include EpiSC obtained from human as well as non-human sources.

In the production method described in this invention, the preferred “TET1 protein” used to be introduced in pluripotent stem cells or a somatic cell to be induced to pluripotent stem cells is a “mutant TET1 protein”.

In this present invention, the “mutant TET1 protein” may be a protein obtained by artificially introducing a mutation into the wild type TET1 protein as described below or a protein whereby a mutation naturally (non-artificially) occurred in the wild type TET1 protein as long as it has a function of enhancing differentiation efficacy of PSCs when it is introduced into the PSCs. In order to assess such enhancement of a PSC differentiation efficacy, one can for example introduce the TET1 protein into PSCs and evaluate the expression of factors which induce differentiation into different cell lineage, differentiation markers, factors which represent the differentiation propensity or factors which exhibit differentiation resistance, during various differentiation paradigms.

As for the mutant TET1 protein, it is preferred that the TET1 protein has an increased stability when expressed in a primed pluripotent stem cell. One can assess if the protein is more stable or not by known protein detection method such as Western blotting as shown in Examples shown below.

Preferred examples of “a mutant protein having enhanced stability as compared to the wild type TET1 protein” include a protein in which the second amino acid from the N-terminus is different from that of the wild type TET1 protein.

The TET1 protein which differs from the wild type TET1 in its second N-terminus amino acid can be obtained, as shown below, by artificially introducing a mutation to the wild type TET1 protein. Such a mutant TET1 protein may be a mutant protein having the mutation that occurred naturally.

An example of the TET1 mutant having amino acid substitution includes a TET1 protein in which the second amino acid from the N-terminus (which is a serine in the case of human TET1 protein) has been replaced with a different amino acid (for an example glycine). Although there is no particular restriction about the method to change the second amino acid from the N-terminus of TET1 protein, we can for example use site-directed mutagenesis (Kramer W. & Fritz H J., Methods Enzymol., 1987. 154, 350).

An example of the TET1 mutant having amino acid insertion or addition includes a TET1 protein in which one or plural amino acids have been inserted between the first and the second amino acid of the N-terminus of the wild type TET1 protein or a TET1 protein in which one or plural amino acids have been added to the N-terminus of the wild type TET1 protein. In these cases, plural amino acids could be any plural number for example two to 100 amino acids (preferably 2 to 50 or even more preferably 2 to 10 amino acids). There is no restriction for the method used to insert or add amino acids in the way and so, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) can be performed by using a primer containing an oligonucleotide encoding an amino acid or a peptide to be inserted or added.

An example of the TET1 mutant having amino acid deletion includes a TET1 protein in which one or plural amino acids have been deleted from the N-terminal portion of the wild type TET1 protein. In this case, from the perspective of retaining the functions of the TET1 protein without impairing the DNA binding region, it is preferable that one or plural amino acids have been deleted in the region from amino acid number 1 to 584 counted from the N-terminus of the wild type TET1 protein. In this case too, there is no restriction of the number of “plural” amino acids to be deleted, but the number is for example 2 to 100 (preferably 2 to 50 and more preferably 2 to 10). There is no restriction for the method used to delete amino acids in the way and so, a DNA encoding a TET1 protein having a deletion can be obtained by PCR.

Also as will be shown in the working example 9, it is possible to obtain an enhancement of the differentiation efficacy of the PSCs if the DNA binding motif of TET1 is preserved and therefore the de-methylating activity is redundant. Therefore the mutant TET1 protein may be a mutant having a deletion of a region locating C-terminus side from the DNA binding region (CXXC domain), and more specifically may be a mutant TET1 protein which lacks its dioxygenase domain or may be a mutant TET1 protein which lacks both the cysteine-rich and the dioxygenase domains.

In this invention, the DNA-binding domain of TET1 protein refers to the amino acid stretch encompassing the lysine 585 to lysine 613 of the human TET1 protein (SEQ ID NO: 2, 4 or 6). The dioxygenase domain refers to the amino acid stretch encompassing amino acids 1611 to 2074 in SEQ ID NO: 2, amino acids 1640 to 2103 in SEQ ID NO: 4 or amino acids 809 to 1272 in SEQ ID NO: 6. Also the cysteine-rich domain refers to the amino acid stretch encompassing amino acids 1418 to 1610 in SEQ ID NO: 2, amino acids 1418 to 1608 and 1638 to 1639 in SEQ ID NO: 4 or amino acids 657 to 777 and 807 to 808 in SEQ ID NO: 6.

So far mentioned are examples of the preferred examples for the mutant proteins used in this invention, however, as far as that by introducing it into a pluripotent stem cell, the cell exhibit enhanced differentiation capability, one can also use TET1 proteins which bear other mutation. For example, considering that TET1, TET2 and TET3 proteins all share quasi-equivalent catalytic (dioxygenase) domains, one can swap the TET1-dioxygenase domain with that of TET2 or TET3 protein, or can directly or indirectly combine the TET1-DNA-binding domain and the dioxygenase domain of TET2 or TET3 protein for such purpose.

For the production method of this invention, it is also conceivable to introduce the wild-type TET1 protein into a pluripotent stem cell. The “wild-type TET1 protein” in this invention typically refers to proteins of SEQ ID NO: 2, 4 or 6 or their naturally occurring homologues which are supposedly degraded in primed pluripotent stem cells. When using such wild-type TET1 protein, it is preferable to use an excess amount of the protein in such a way it exceeds the capacity of a given pluripotent stem cell to degrade it. Or from the point of view of inhibiting such degradation in a pluripotent stem cell, one may additionally use a decoy of TET1 protein. For such a decoy, one may use a polypeptide derived from the N-terminus of the wild-type TET1 protein.

As shown in the examples described later, in order to enhance the differentiation potential of pluripotent stem cells, it is necessary that the function of the DNA-binding domain of the protein having the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 2, 4 or 6 is maintained. Therefore, such homolog of the protein having the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 2, 4 or 6 is preferably a natural protein with sequence homology of over 70% (for example, 75%, 80% 85%, 90%, 95%, 97%, over 99%) to the DNA-binding domain (CXXC domain) of the protein. Such natural proteins can be listed as identified by accession number XP_(—)003359270, XP_(—)004777901, XP_(—)005602635, XP_(—)002805756, XP 003928828, XP 002735044, XP 005168673, of CG43444, and the like.

In this invention, a “homology in amino acid sequence” denotes a perfect match and the proportion (in %) of the matched amino acids (similar amino acids) regarding their physical-chemical properties including basicity and acidity and can be determined by using BLASTP program (Altschul et al. J. Mol. Biol., 215: 403-410, 1990), and the like. The program is based on the BLAST algorithm originally proposed by Karlin and Altschul (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 87:2264-2268, 1990, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 90:5873-5877, 1993). More specifically, BLAST homology search of the NCBI page (http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi), the default parameters, the program including “protein blast” and “blastx” can be used to determine homology. These methods for analyses are well known to those in the art.

Also, in case that the mutant TET1 protein described in this invention may be degraded in primed pluripotent stem cells, one may use excess amount overexpression or decoy strategy described above for wild-type TET1 protein.

For the preparation of mutant TET1 proteins in this invention, we previously mentioned methods where one can modify nucleic acids which code for wild-type TET1 protein. Those in the art may for example be able to produce such mutant TET1 proteins by introducing the nucleic acids encoding the mutant TET1 proteins by baculovirus-infection of Sf9 insect cells. Moreover, besides such genetically mutant preparations, one may directly synthesize mutant TET1 proteins used in this invention by a commercially available poly-peptide synthesizer in a chemical fashion.

To prepare such wild-type TET1 protein, those skilled in the art can obtain nucleic acid coding for said protein by using know method such as hybridization technologies onto cDNA library or genomic DNA library obtained from human or non-human tissues which express TET1 protein and then, use the preparation method mentioned for the preparation of the mutant TET1 protein such as introducing the nucleic acid obtained as above into an insect cell. Alternatively, one can also synthesize such wild-type TET1 protein using a commercially available polypeptide synthesizer according the amino acid sequence shown in SEQ ID NO: 2.

For the methods to introduce the nucleic acids encoding the mutant TET1 proteins into PSCs or the after-mentioned somatic cells which will be utilized to induce PSCs, we do not have any particular restrictions and therefore are able to use methods such as viral infection, lipofection, liposome introduction, electroporation, Ca phosphate, DEAE dextran or microinjection of the expression vectors which bear the nucleic acids encoding the TET1 proteins (for example its cDNA) within appropriate expression vectors which are known to function in the desired cell types.

Such expression vectors include, for examples, viral expression systems such as lentivirus, retrovirus, adenovirus, adeno-associated virus, herpes virus, Sendai virus as well as mammalian expression plasmid vectors such as episomal vectors, PiggyBac transposon vectors. Among these, from the standpoint that the nucleic acids encoding the TET1 proteins are not integrated into the cell's genome, it is preferable to use episomal vectors or Sendai virus. Moreover, from the standpoint that the nucleic acids are temporarily introduced in the genome but will be able to be removed away by transposase, it is preferable to use PiggyBac transposon vector.

For such expression vectors, we can exploit promoters such as CAG, SRα, SV40, LTR, CMV, RSV or HSV-TK promoters. Such promoter selection can include promoters where the expression of the genes introduced beneath can be controlled by the presence or absence of the added agents (for example tetracycline). The expression vectors can also bear, in addition to the promoter, enhancer, poly A addition signal, selection markers (for examples, puromycin-resistance or neomycin-resistance genes) or SV40 replication origin.

The modes of expression of the aforementioned TET1 protein-encoding nucleic acids introduced into PSCs can either be transient, inducible or constitutive. However, regarding its function in extinguishing the expression of NANOG, an inhibitory factor for differentiation induction, and also that differentiation may be hindered if the so-called reprogramming signal by TET1 persists during differentiation process from PSCs produced by the method of this invention to other cell lineage, the preferred expression modes should be transient or inducible. Such controlled expression period is preferably between one day before the commencement of the differentiation of PSCs produced by the method of this invention and 4 days after it.

Methods wherein we can introduce the TET1 protein into each cells include the use of protein cell transfection agents, introducing a protein transduction domain (PTD) fused to the mutant protein, electroporation or direct microinjection.

For the culture conditions used on or after introduction of the mutant TET1 proteins or the nucleic acid encoding it or a vector inserted with the nucleic acid, there is no specific restriction but could be specified by conditions used by those in the art such as culture media constituents, culture temperature, culture humidity, carbon dioxide and/or oxygen tension. Regarding the hydroxylation reaction that the TET1 may provide, it is preferable that Fe, α-ketoglutarate or ascorbic acid (vitamin C) are included in the culture media.

The types of somatic cells to be reprogrammed to PSCs by introduction of the TET1 protein can be anything, and examples thereof include fibroblasts, epithelial cells, blood cells, arbitrary cells derived from an animal. Reprogramming of such cells toward PSCs (especially toward iPS cells) can be achieved by introducing such “reprogramming factors” into somatic cells to erase the cellular memory of each somatic cell.

Such “reprogramming factors” denote any factors with the capacity of harnessing pluripotency to the somatic cells when introduced singly or in concert with other factors such as OCT3/4, c-MYC, L-MYC, N-MYC, SOX2, KLF4, KLF5, KLF2, LIN28, NANOG, ECAT1, ESG1, FBX15, ERAS, ECAT7, ECAT8, GDF3, SOX15, ECAT15-1, ECAT15-2, Fth117, SALL1, SALL4, REX1, UTF1, TCL1, STELLA, β-catenin, ESRRB, PRDM14, TBX3, STAT3, GATA3 and GRB2 proteins as well as miR-199a-3p, miR-291-3p, miR-294, miR-295 (miR-290 cluster) as well as miR-302 cluster microRNA. Among all these factors, from the viewpoint that the reprogramming occurs with relatively small number of factors, it is preferred to introduce OCT3/4, c-MYC, SOX2 and KLF4 (the so-called Yamanaka factors) into somatic cells. To reduce the tumorigenicity of the obtained PSCs, it is also preferable to replace c-MYC with L-MYC from the four factors or to introduce OCT3/4, SOX2 and KLF4 (3 factors). Moreover, from the standpoint of the induction efficacy of the PSCs, it is preferable to introduce OCT3/4, L-MYC, SOX2, KLF4 and LIN28 and also, chemical compounds or nucleic acids which can inhibit the function of p53 or p21 into the somatic cells. Meanwhile, the “reprogramming factor” does not necessarily have to be the above-described proteins and the like, and may be a low-molecular-weight compound having an alternative function to these or capable of inducing these expressions. Examples of such a low-molecular-weight compound include histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors such as valproic acid (VPA), GSK-3β inhibitors such as CHIR99021, TGF-β1 type receptor inhibitors such as 616452, histone demethylase inhibitors such as tranylcypromine, cAMP production promoters such as forskolin, histone methyltransferase inhibitors such as 3-deazaneplanocin (DZNep), and combinations thereof.

In this present invention, the methods to introduce reprogramming factors into somatic cells can be anything as being discussed about the methods for introducing the TET1 proteins; by selecting the relevant publicly known method, if a protein is to be introduced, the embodiment could be the protein itself or the nucleic acids encoding such protein and if a microRNA is desired, we can introduce it as nucleic acid molecules. But if such reprogramming factors persist within the obtained PSCs, the cells may acquire some resistance against cell differentiation to other cell lineage and makes it difficult to stably harnessing new cell memories. From this point, it is preferable to introduce nucleic acids encoding the reprogramming factors through the use of episomal vectors, Sendai virus or PiggyBac transposon vector.

The timing of such introduction of reprogramming factors can be before, simultaneous or after the introduction of the TET1 proteins or the nucleic acids coding the proteins.

The culture conditions after the introductions of reprogramming factors into somatic cells can be suitably selected by those in the art among the publicly known cell culture methods. An example of such cell culture methods is to culture the cells onto feeder cells in a culture medium suited for somatic cells and then to gradually switch to media suitable for PSCs.

“Feeder cells” can be any cell lines which support the growth and the maintenance of PSCs such as mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs), OP-9 cells, PA6 cells, NIH3T3 cells, M15 cells, 10T/2 cells, STO cells or SNL cells. It is also preferable that the growth of such cells are reduced by antibiotic treatment (like Mitomycin C treatment) or by irradiation.

“A culture medium suited for somatic cells” can be anything publicly known to those in the art and be further selected according the kind of somatic cells used. For examples as basic culture media, we can list Roswell Park Memorial Institute (RPMI) 1640 medium, Minimally Essential Medium (α-MEM), Dulbecco's modified Eagle Medium (DMEM) and F12 medium and to these basic media we can add supplements such as human sera, cytokines, amino acids needed to cell culture (for example L-glutamine) and antibiotics (such as streptomycin, penicillin, puromycin) to prepare “a culture medium suited for somatic cells”.

“Media suitable for PSCs” can be selected according to the originated animal from a battery of publicly known media. To give an example of such media for human PSCs, DMEM/F12 supplemented with Knockout Serum Replacement (KSR; Life Technologies), L-glutamine, non-essential amino acids, 2-mercaptoethanol and FGF2 can be one option.

The aforementioned co-culture method with feeder cells is a preferred method for inducing and maintaining PSCs as it provides an easy way to maintain the undifferentiated state of the cells. However, from the standpoint of enhancing the differentiation efficacies to ectoderm lineage such as nerve cells and enabling tight control over the cell densities of the PSCs, non-feeder culture and passaging by trituration is the preferred method for the PSCs in this invention. For such non-feeder trituration passaging culture, we can use methods discussed below.

Once the reprogramming factors are introduced to somatic cells, these cells are cultured in E8 medium developed by Thomson's group (Chen G et al., Nat Methods, 2011, vol. 8, 424-429). Once iPS cell colonies become discernible, the obtained PSCs are dispersed into culture media containing KSR, FGF2, Activin A, ROCK inhibitor and fibronectin and then seeded onto collagen type I-coated culture dishes which will produce such non-feeder trituration passaging.

For such trituration passaging, the basic culture media to which KSR, FGF2 and Activin A and so on are to be supplemented can be, for example, DMEM/F12 medium or CDM medium. For the concentrations of KSR, FGF2 and Activin A added to these basic media can be within the ranges of 15-25%, 4 to 100 ng/ml and 0.01 to 20 ng/ml, respectively. In a more preferred embodiment, the concentrations are 20%, 15 ng/ml and 10 ng/ml, respectively. In addition to these supplements, other constituents such as L-glutamine, non-essential amino acids or antibiotics (such as streptomycin, penicillin or puromycin) can be added.

In addition, to enhance the efficacy of inducing PSCs, regardless the presence or absence of feeder cells, chemicals which inhibit the function of HDAC (small molecule inhibitors such as valproic acid (VPA), trichostatin A, sodium butyrate, MC1293 or M344), chemicals which inhibit the function of G9a histone methyltransferase (small molecule inhibitors such as BIX-01294), chemicals which inhibit the function of p53 (small molecule inhibitors such as Pifithrin-α(PFT-α)), chemicals which inhibit the function of p21, compounds which inhibit the function of micro RNAs including, let-7 cluster, miR-17-92, miR-21, miR-29a, miR-106a-363 or miR-106b-25, are preferably to be added when or after the reprogramming factors are introduced into somatic cells. From a similar perspective in which we anticipate that the induction efficacy of PSCs may increase upon inhibition of such factors, we can also introduce to the somatic cells nucleic acids with inhibitory effects toward HDAC, G9a, p53, p21 or micro RNAs such as let-7 cluster (siRNA, shRNA, antisense, aptamers and so on) using publicly know methods for nucleic acid delivery.

Moreover, although the aforementioned culture methods including culture conditions (such as culture temperature, oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations) can suitably be set by those in the art, from the standpoint that it may enhance the induction efficacy of PSCs, it is preferred to culture in hypoxic condition (oxygen concentration: 5%).

Thus far, we have explained the production methods of PSCs in this present invention. For comparatively evaluating the differentiation efficacies between the PSCs induced by such methods and PSCs in which the mutant TET1 are not introduced, as will be explained in the working example 7 later, one can judge the differentiation efficacy by indexing the efficacy of cell differentiation toward the desired cell lineage (for example by dividing the cell number of the desired cell type after differentiation by the total number of PSCs before such differentiation). Moreover, as will be described in the working examples 5 and 6 later, we can measure the expression levels of differentiation markers (such as SOX1, NEUROGENIN1, NEUROGENIN2, NEUROD1, ASCL1, PAX6, ZNF521 or OTX2 for nerve cells), factors which induce differentiation to other cell lineage (for example, SOX2 when nerve differentiation is desired), factors which mark the differentiation propensities (for example, when ectoderm differentiation is desired, markers such as T and SOX17) or factors which resist proper differentiation (for examples, NANOG and OCT3/4) during the cell differentiation process and deduce and judge from these expression data whether the differentiation efficacy has been improved or not. Moreover, as will be shown in Example 11, the current human iPSCs without TET1-introduction tend to express higher levels of the differentiation markers such as FOXA2, LHX1, LIM2, SOX17, EOMES or T, in addition to undifferentiation markers such as GPC4, GAGE2B and GAGE7. Therefore, those markers can be utilized to assess the enhancement of differentiation capacities.

Also, of these markers, GPC4, GAGE2B and GAGE7 are also known as cancer-related markers. Therefore, this invention can also provide a way of assessing the “safety” (the propensity for tumorigenesis upon transplantation) of the given pluripotent stem cells by evaluating at least one marker out of GPC4, GAGE2B and GAGE7.

<Proteins, Nucleic Acids, Vectors and Cells of this Invention>

As described above, for the production method of PSC of this invention, the TET1 protein which is resistant to degradation in primed PSCs is useful. Therefore this invention provides a mutant TET1 protein having enhanced stability as compared to a wild type TET1 protein, preferably a mutant TET1 protein in which its second amino acid from the N-terminus is different from the second amino acid from the N-terminus of the wild type TET1 protein.

Moreover, the described amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 4 or 6 which denote TET1 protein sequence first described by the inventors and are useful to prepare the mutant TET1 proteins as well as to provide a wild type TET1 protein to be used in the production method of this invention. Therefore, the present invention also provides these TET1 proteins.

Furthermore as described above, to express the mutant TET1 proteins having enhanced stability as compared to a wild type TET1 protein in the PSCs, the nucleic acids encoding such proteins are useful. Also, to prepare the mutant TET1 proteins and the nucleic acids encoding such proteins as well as to provide a wild type TET1 protein to be used in the production method of this invention, the nucleic acids which encode the amino acid sequences 4 or 6 of TET1 are also useful. Therefore, this present invention also provides such nucleic acids.

As mentioned above, to introduce the nucleic acids into somatic cells, it is preferable to insert the nucleic acid sequence into a vector. Therefore, this invention also provides vectors which bear a nucleic acid sequence coding the mutant TET1 protein with enhanced stability as compared to a wild type TET1 protein or a nucleic acid sequence encoding the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 4 or 6.

Moreover, according to the production method of this invention, as mentioned above, one can obtain a pluripotent stem cell with enhanced differentiation capacity. Therefore, this invention also provides pluripotent stem cells and/or somatic cells aimed to be induced to the stem cell which had been introduced by at least one molecule selected by the group (a) to (c) below:

(a) TET1 protein (b) a nucleic acid coding for TET1 protein (c) a vector into which a nucleic acid that encodes TET1 protein has been inserted

EXAMPLES

From here on, we are going to discuss our invention in details. However, the present invention is not restricted to the working examples shown below. The materials and methods used in these working examples are as follows.

<Human iPSC Production Using Episomal DNA Vectors>

The human iPSCs used in these working examples were derived using the method described by Okita K. et al. (Nat Methods, 2011, vol. 8, 409-412). Three pairs of reprogramming factors, namely a short-hairpin RNA against p53 (shp53) and POU5F1 (OCT3/4), SOX2 and KLF4, L-MYC and LIN28 are introduced in independent episomal pCXLE vectors and three vector DNAs were prepared.

In this process of the production of such iPS cells, cellular reprogramming which is a process to erase the cellular memories of the somatic cells was performed by over-expressing the so-called Yamanaka four factors (OCT3/4, SOX2, KLF4 and c-MYC). In these working examples, to decrease the likelihood of iPS cell-derived tumorigenesis which is an inherent characteristic of the introduced reprogramming factors, we have replace c-MYC by L-MYC, a reprogramming factor which is known to bear less tumorigenic property. Also, to enhance the efficacy of human iPS cell induction, LIN28 which is known to enhance induction efficacy of human iPS cells was also introduced to somatic cells. Also, as p53 acts to repress reprogramming, this factor was repressed by RNA interference (RNAi) against p53 using shp53.

If the reprogramming factors used to induce iPS cells are retained in the derived iPS cells during the course of producing of iPS cells, such iPS cells may exhibit some resistance against a certain differentiation signal such as neural induction (differentiation resistance) and have difficulty of gaining a novel cell memory. To this end, in these working examples, we chose episomal vector system to introduce genes which allow us to avoid genomic integration of the reprogramming vectors and persistent factor expression.

Next, the inventors introduced 1 μg of each the 3 vector DNA into 1.0×10⁵ human neonatal fibroblasts using DNA transfection reagents (Human fibroblast Nucleofector™ kit) and a DNA transfection apparatus (Nucleofector™) (both from Lonza). Subsequently, the transfected cells have been maintained in E8 media, developed by Thomson et al., capable to induce iPS cells at a feeder-free condition (Chen, G et al., Nat Methods, 2011, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp424-429). During the first 5 to 10 days after transfection, hydrocortisone with fibroblast-proliferative activity was added to the E8 medium at a concentration of 100 nM, but afterward, both hydrocortisone and TGFβ were removed from the E8 medium to allow iPS cell reprogramming to occur. Cell culture media was replaced every one or two days and throughout this reprogramming process, cells were maintained in a hypoxic condition of 5% oxygen and 5% carbon dioxide within a hypoxic cell incubator.

Through these cultures, the authors were able to obtain multiple iPS cell colonies typically 25 to 30 days later after the introduction of vector DNA. Next, as will be mentioned afterward, the iPS cell colonies were individually picked up and cultured into a culture medium containing KnockOut Serum Replacement (KSR), Fibroblast Growth Factor 2 (FGF2), Activin A, ROCK inhibitor and Fibronectin and plated onto Collagen type I-coated culture dishes to isolate iPS cell clones. Examples of the obtained human iPS cell clones which were stably maintained and shown here are YMhiPSC058, YMhiPSC105 and YMhiPSC237.

When single cell-derived subclones from these original iPS cell clones were obtained and their differentiation potential were individually checked, the authors have found significant variations in the propensities of each subclones, which strongly suggests that the human iPS cell colonies induced as above are not homogeneous in terms of differentiation potential (data not shown). In the following working examples, results obtained from the YMhiPSC058sbc6 subclone, which exhibited the lowest differentiation biases among the obtained subclones, are displayed.

[Trituration Cell Passaging of Human iPS Cells at a Non-Feeder Condition]

In these working examples, human iPS cells were cultured in DMEM/F12 media (Kohjin-Bio) containing 20% KSR (Invitrogen), 15 ng/ml human FGF2 (Peprotech), 10 ng/ml heparin sulfate (SIGMA), 0.03% L-glutamine (MP Biochemicals), 1× non-essential amino acids (Invitrogen), 1× penicillin (Invitrogen) and 1× streptomycin (Invitrogen) (KFA medium hereafter), and maintained at a feeder-free condition.

At cell passaging, human iPS cells were single-cell triturated using 0.01% trypsin/0.1 mM EDTA and replated in KFA medium containing 2 μM ROCK inhibitor (Thiazovivin, WAKO) and 5 μg/ml human Fibronectin (BD Biosciences), followed by seeding onto a collagen type I-coated culture dish.

The non-feeder, trituration cell passaging method for human iPS cells has been independently established by the inventors themselves for the first time. This means that the inventors have performed pilot experiments to deduce adequate conditions which allow this non-feeder, trituration passaging of human iPS cells prior to these working examples. The reason why such pilot experiments were needed was as follows: The current lab routine for maintaining human ES cells or iPS cells alike uses mouse feeder cells which is relatively easy to keep the cells in an undifferentiated state. However, the authors have independently found that such cultures were rendering the stem cells more intractable to cell differentiation especially toward the neuroectoderm lineage. Moreover, although it is commonly accepted that trituration during human pluripotent stem cell passaging is more difficult, the inventors reckoned that such procedure is essential in controlling the cell density for proper cell differentiation.

Using a human iPS cell line (rvhiPSC08) reprogrammed by retrovirus-mediated expression of reprogramming factors (POU5F1, SOX2, KLF4 and c-MYC), the present inventors have addressed the following two points.

-   -   (1) the growth factor(s) to be added and its (their)         concentration(s), and     -   (2) the combination of the cell signaling inhibitors and the         extracellular matrices to be used at the passage with trypsin.

At the time of these experiments, one of the conventional ways for culturing human pluripotent stem cells (PSCs) was to culture the cells in basal media supplemented chiefly with KSR, an Invitrogen reagent, and with human FGF2 at a concentration between 4 and 5 ng/ml and onto mouse embryonic fibroblast (MEF) feeders. In this circumstance, the MEF is supposed to provide the extracellular matrix and hence to help the attachability of PSCs onto culture surfaces but also to support cell growth by supplementing FGF2 and/or NODAL secreted by these cells, when judged by the published literature and the authors' own unpublished observations. Therefore, the inventors have investigated especially the effects of FGF2 and Activin A with NODAL-like activity to be added on top of KSR to their media. They have investigated the concentrations of FGF2 and Activin A by assessing the expression of markers such as POU5F1, SOX2 or NANOG which indicate the undifferentiated status, a mesendodermal marker T (also known as BRACHYURY) and a neuroectodermal marker SOX1. The inventors have come up with final concentrations of approximately 15 ng/ml for FGF2 and 10 ng/ml for Activin A which gave best results in stable cell proliferation of these cells, and by using KFA medium, the inventors succeeded in easily culturing human iPS cells at a non-feeder fashion.

Although the routine passaging procedure was to loosely detach human iPS cell colonies enzymatically which gave cell aggregates of average size of several tens of cells, from the viewpoints presented earlier, the inventors went on to devise a way to allow such cell trituration. It has been known that human ES cells could be single-cell passaged using ROCK inhibitors (Watanabe, K. et al., Nat Biotechnol., 2007, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp 681-686; Lin, T. et al., Nat Methods, 2009, Vol. 6, No. 11, pp 805-808). However, in these known literatures, the use of artificial extracellular matrices such as MatriGel for coating a culture dish is mandatory and therefore these methods were not user-friendly. The inventors have found a paper in which such use of artificial extracellular matrices is replaced by fibronectin which could be added directly into the culture medium to help trituration passaging (Kitajima, H. et al., Biochem Biophys Res Commun, 2010, Vol. 396, No. 4, pp 933-938). Collectively, the present inventors have deduced that by combining the KFA media, ROCK inhibitor and fibronectin to maintain human iPS cells after trypsin-single-cell passaging in collagen type I-coated culture dishes would be a feasible culture methods which finally led them to establish their own non-feeder, trituration-passaging culture method of the cells.

[Quantitative RT-PCR]

RNA was extracted using RNeasy mini kits (QIAGEN). To avoid genomic DNA contamination, RNase-free-DNase set (QIAGEN) was also used for DNase treatment. Using 1 μg of total RNA as a template, cDNA was reverse-transcribed using oligo-dT primer (TOYOBO) and Revertra Ace (TOYOBO). The cDNA was diluted 20 times in distilled water and quantitative PCR (qPCR) was performed using Fast SYBR green master mix reagent (ABI) and primers listed in Table 1 on an ABI apparatus. For each RNA sample, a triplicate of reactions were performed to obtain each mean value and values normalized against GAPDH internal controls were shown as graphs (FIGS. 2, 5, and 8-23).

TABLE 1 Gene name of Forward primer Reverse pritmer amplification SEQ ID SEQ ID target Sequence NO: Sequence NO: GAPDH agccacatcgctcagacac 11 gcccaatacgaccaaatcc 12 POU5F1 ctttgaggctctgcagcttag 13 tctgctttgcatatctcctgaa 14 SOX2 gggggaatggaccttgtatag 15 gcaaagctcctaccgtacca 16 NANOG tctccaacatcctgaacctca 17 ttgctattcttcggccagtt 18 T(Brachury) gctgtgacaggtacccaacc 19 catgcaggtgagttgtcagaa 20 SOX1 ggctgagcaccactacgact 21 gcattataaaatttcccaaatcatc 22 PAX6 atttcccgctctggttcag 23 gttttctccacggatgttgc 24 SOX17 acgccgagttgagcaaga 25 tctgcctcctccacgaag 26 MIXL1 ggtaccccgacatccactt 27 gcctgttctggaaccatacct 28 NEUROGENIN1 ccgcttgttaggtcgccgca 29 tgggctgagggccggagaaa 30 NEUROGENIN2 acacgcaccaccaccacaaca 31 ccggcgagtttgccaagagc 32 ASCL1 cgacttcaccaactggttctg 33 atgcaggttgtgcgatca 34 ZNF521 tgggatattcaggttcatgttg 35 actggagtttggcaggagag 36 NUROD1 gcggccacgacacgaggaat 37 cgcccatcagcccactctcg 38 TET1 ccaagccccagaagattag 39 tggagctaatcgtgtag 40 DNMT3A ggtgcactgaaatggaaagg 41 actggcacgctccatgac 42 DNMT3B ggtgcactgagctcgaaag 43 aagaggtgtcggatgacagg 44

[Western Blotting]

To reproducibly detect TET1 protein using Western blotting, the authors have performed sets of pilot experiments to optimize the method for protein extraction. It turned out that Tet1 molecules were strongly bound to DNA. The inventors have found that by cell-fractionating cell nuclei followed by protein extraction using NER solution (PIERCE) allowed them to quantitatively detect TET1 protein. It was known later that TET1 protein binds to DNA with an unprecedented affinity, which may explain the requirement of such special extraction method.

For western blotting, protein was extracted with the method and was size-fractionated using SDS-PAGE followed by electro-transfer onto a PVDF membrane. Anti-human TET1 antibody (SIGMA) and anti-human β-actin antibody (SANTA CRUZ) were diluted ×1,000 in 0.3% Triton-X100, 3% BSA and 1% normal-goat serum in PBS(−) (antibody diluting solution). Next, the membrane was incubated in the diluted primary antibody solution overnight at 4° C. After stringent washing, the membrane was incubated with HRP-conjugated secondary antibody at room temperature for one hour. After washing, ECL (GE Healthcare) was reacted with HRP present on the membrane surface, and the resulting fluorescence was developed on a film.

[Neural Differentiation of Human iPS Cells]

The neural differentiation of human iPS cells were basically performed according to the improved protocol the inventors have previously developed for mouse ES cells in that these cells efficiently differentiated to neurons (Bouhon, I. et al., Brain Res Bull, 2005, vol. 68 (1-2), pp. 62 to 75). The details are as follows:

(1) Adaptation Culture

Before each cell differentiation, human iPS cells routinely maintained in KFA at a feeder-free condition were transferred to a CDM-based medium, a step which the authors call adaptation culture. The novel CFA medium used for this adaptation culture consists of CDM medium supplemented with 40 ng/ml human recombinant FGF2 and 2ng/ml human recombinant Activin A and was developed herein especially to switch the human PSCs from maintenance culture to neural differentiation. The details of the CDM medium can be found in Bouhon, I A et al., Brain Res Bull, 2005, Vol. 68 (1-2), pp 62-75. As cells are slightly more vulnerable to oxidative stress originated from atmospheric oxygen in this culture medium, this adaptation culture was performed in a low-oxygen CO₂ incubator (hypoxic condition: oxygen concentration 5%).

(2) Neural Precursor Cell Differentiation of Human iPS Cells

When confluency is attained, CFA-cultured human iPS cells were dissociated with trypsin treatment as mentioned above and resuspended at a cell density of 5×10⁴ cells/ml in CDM medium supplemented with 10 μM Y27632 (a ROCK inhibitor) and plated down onto a low-attachment culture dish (bacterio-grade Petri dish).

Four days after the induction of differentiation, the formed cell aggregates (“spheres” hereafter) were collected and were single-cell dissociated back with Accutase (BD Biosciences). The dissociated cells were then transferred to the neural induction medium (10 μM SB431542, 30 nM IWR-1endo and 10 μM Y276732 in CDM) and plated onto Petri dishes as above. After additional four days, the collected spheres were dissociated as above and resuspended in CDM containing 10 μM SB431542 and 10 μM Y27632.

In the above procedure, SB431542 and IWR-1endo were deliberately added to the original CDM differentiation medium by taking into account the difference between mouse ES cells and human PSCs. This is because from the naïve mouse ES cells, a primitive endoderm cell population can be derived which can become a source of expressing antagonizing factors against the anti-neural TGFβ/Nodal and WNT signaling according to the inventors' previous reports. In contrast, primitive endoderm cells cannot be normally induced from human PSCs and therefore their differentiation toward neural cells would be expected to be defective if the mouse ES cell neural differentiation protocol is applied without modification. Therefore in order to assess the neural differentiation potentials of the given human iPS cells in the following Examples, the inventors have deliberately added the small molecule SB542431 to block the TGFβ/Nodal signaling and IWR-1endo, a WNT signaling antagonizing small molecule to their neural differentiation media.

After the cells were treated in CDM supplemented with SB542431 and Y27632, at similar intervals, the spheres were passaged in CDM plus Y27632 or passed to the maturation procedure as follows. In the inventors' hands, maintaining the differentiated neural precursors in CDM did not let these cells mature into neurons but kept proliferating as precursors.

(3) Maturation of Neurons

Neurons are post-mitotic and therefore do not divide anymore. With the neural differentiation protocol, proliferating neural precursor cells could be differentiated out of human PSCs. To obtain functional post-mitotic neurons with characteristic neurites, we have to keep these cells individually attached onto substrates on the bottom of a culture dish out of the formed precursor spheres (This step whereby the precursors are let to mature in a culture dish into neurons can be called as “neuron-maturation culture”).

At the neuron-maturation culture, culture dish surfaces were transferred from non-attaching Petri dish plastic to neuron-permissive collagen type IV (IWAKI). For culture, the inventors have further pre-treated it with poly-L-ornithine (SIGMA) and recombinant laminin (BD Biosciences) for a certain period of time. The spheres were dissociated using Accutase as mentioned earlier. Moreover, during this maturation culture, cells were maintained in CDM containing 3 μM CHIR99021, 10 μM DAPT and 10 μM forskolin. The culture medium was replaced every second day, and after about a week, neurons with prominent neurites were observed.

Working Example 1 Endogenous TET1 Dynamics in Human Pluripotent Stem Cells

The mouse PSCs bear similar characteristics of the pre-implantation blastocyst's inner cell mass. In contrast, human PSCs are most akin to the post-implantation epiblast's primitive ectodermal cells. From this difference in developmental stages, it is generally assumed that human PSCs are less pluripotent than mouse PSCs. Therefore, the inventors aimed to enhance the pluripotency of human PSCs by further de-differentiating (or reprogramming) these cells from an epiblast-like (primed) state toward a blastocyst-like (naive) state.

During development, there are two kind of reprogramming. One occurs from fertilization to implantation and called the “early embryonic reprogramming” and the other occurs after implantation during the specification of the germline which is called the “germline reprogramming”. From these, the inventors considered that the cell memories acquired during the process of blastocyst to epiblast transition should be erased and have come up with TET1 which seemed to be a strong candidate after examining various factors expressing during the “early embryonic reprogramming”.

The expression profile for Tet1/TET1 in mammals is only reported for mice. According to these information, mouse Tet1 is known to be expressed during the early development within the nuclei of the fertilized eggs up to blastocysts (Ito S., Nature, 2010, vol. 466, 1129-1133). Another paper described this factor is also expressed specifically in the primordial germ cells in which the germ cells are specified (Hajkova P., Science, 2010, vol. 329, 78-82). Moreover, Tet1 protein is also abundantly expressed in mouse ES cells which are derived from the Tet1-expressing blastocysts. However, there was no information available about the expression profile of the human TET1 thus far.

First, the inventors investigated the expression of TET1 mRNA and protein in human iPS cells. For the detection of TET1 protein, the inventors have noticed that this protein is strongly bound to DNA and therefore exploited a strong elution method which for the first time allowed them to quantitatively detect this protein by western blotting. The results are shown in FIGS. 1 and 2.

As clearly shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, albeit the fact that TET1 is expressed at the transcript level, its protein was not detected in normal conditions, a situation which contrasts to the one observed for mouse ES cells.

Therefore, the inventors went on to transiently inhibit the function of the major protein degradation pathway, the proteasome, and tried to detect TET1 with western blotting. Independent human iPS cell lines (#58, #237 and #105) were cultured in KFA medium in a routine fashion but 7 hours before nuclear extract sampling, the cells were treated with MG132 5 μM with 0.1% of DMSO as a solvent and processed for western blots. As control, cells were also treated with 0.1% DMSO alone for 7 hours before nuclear extraction and processed for western blots.

As shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, TET1 being actively transcribed in human iPS cells, was swiftly degraded at the protein level through the proteasome system. Upon MG132 treatment, although the transcription levels of TET1 were also up-regulated, these were clearly not causative of the drastic changes observed at the protein levels. Together, these results indicate that human PSCs under a normal condition do not bear TET1 protein or otherwise, its protein level in these cells stayed under the detection limit by western blots.

Working Example 2 Determination of the Structure for Human TET1 Gene

As has been clearly shown in the Working example 1, TET1 protein was not stabilized in human PSCs. When considering the process of human iPS cell induction, it is unlikely that the cells in the process have spent enough time under conditions similar to blastocyst- or germline-stage embryos where TET1 protein can be stably expressed and therefore, in this induction process, it is feasible to think that TET1 activity has not been sufficiently transferred to the genome. It is also noticeable that this presence or absence of TET1-genome interaction may be decisive for the difference in the differentiation efficacies between the naive mouse PSCs and the primed human PSCs.

In order to forcefully express TET1 protein in human PSCs, the inventors sought to obtain the full-length cDNA encoding human TET1 by RT-PCR. Using a human iPS cell line (rvhiPSC08), the inventors obtained the TET1 cDNA by RT-PCR using PrimeSTAR Max DNA polymerase (Takara Bio). In this step, according to the available TET1 cDNA sequence (Refseq: NM_(—)030625), the inventors designed their PCR primers so that they can express TET1 protein which would bear FLAG tag either at its N-terminus or C-terminus as shown below and used them for RT-PCRs.

(N-Terminus FLAG Primers)

XhoI-Flag-hTet1-S: (SEQ ID NO: 7) GCAAGAATTCCTCGAGCCACCATGGACTACAAAGACGATGACGACAAGTC TCGATCCCGCCATGCAAG XhoI-hTet1-AS: (SEQ ID NO: 8) GAGTGAATTCCTCGATCAGACCCAATGGTTATAGGGCC (N-terminus FLAG primers) XhoI-hTet1-S: (SEQ ID NO: 9) GCAAGAATTCCTCGAGCCACCATGTCTCGATCCCGCCATGC XhoI-hTet1-Flag-AS: (SEQ ID NO: 10) GAGTGAATTCCTCGATTACTTGTCGTCATCGTCTTTGTAGTCGACCCAAT GG

The results of these RT-PCR, as depicted in FIG. 3, showed two PCR products both of which turned out to be TET1 variants but differed from the Refseq sequence (human TET1, variant 1), and therefore these two variants represent novel splice variants in PSCs.

The longer of the novel variants (human TET1, variant 2), when compared to the Refseq sequence, bears an additional sequence between the 7^(th) exon and the 8^(th) exon with a length of 87 bases. The exon sequence was confirmed to be a single exon from the comparison with the genomic sequence. This part of the TET1 protein corresponds to the N-terminal portion of the catalytic (dioxygenase) domain of TET1 deduced by crystallography. Interestingly, the corresponding exon is present in the mouse Tet1 sequence.

The shorter of the novel variants (human TET1, variant 3) turned out to miss the third to the fifth exons. As these three exons consist of 2493 base pairs, this deletion is supposed to be an in-frame deletion. Within the portion missing in variant 3 when compared to variants 1 and 2, it is reported that two nuclear localization signals are present.

Although not presented here as a figure, variant 2 appeared to be the majorly expressed form in human iPS cells by RT-PCR. In contrast, variant 1 expression, albeit in a more limited amount, was also detectable in human iPS cells. Variant 3 was also expressed in a modest way. Also not shown as a figure was the fact that all three corresponding variants were detectable in the mouse at the mRNA level.

In the sequence listing are shown: human TET1 variant 1 sequence as SEQ ID NO: 1 and the amino acid sequence encoded by this as SEQ ID NO: 2; human TET1 variant 2 sequence as SEQ ID NO: 3 and the amino acid sequence encoded by this as SEQ ID NO: 4; human TET1 variant 3 sequence as SEQ ID NO: 5 and the amino acid sequence encoded by this as SEQ ID NO: 6.

Working Example 3 Expression of the Mutant TET1 Protein: Part 1

The inventors have tried in expressing human TET1 (variant 2) which was amplified in the Working example 2 in human PSCs by introducing it in human PSCs.

As mentioned previously, N-terminal or C-terminal FLAG tag-containing TET1 cDNAs were amplified using human iPS cell cDNA as template using RT-PCR. The obtained 2 modified TET1 cDNAs were then independently inserted into a XhoI site in a mammalian expression vector (pCAG-ires-puro; a gift from Niwa lab at RIKEN CDB) using In-fusion HD cloning kit (Takara Bio).

Next, these expression vectors were independently transfected into the human iPS cell line (YMhiPSC058 subclone) using Nucleofector. The transfection was performed by suspending iPS cells with Human Stem Cell Nucleofector Kit 1 (Lonza) and applying electric pulse under the program B-016 which was previously shown to exhibit highest transfection efficiency toward human iPS cells.

The aforementioned expression vectors were introduced into human iPS cells and by selecting the transfected cells under the pressure of puromycin (1 μg/ml), the inventors obtained several stable transformants for both N-terminal and C-terminal FLAG-tagged TET1 clones. TET1 mRNA and protein expression levels were analyzed and shown in FIGS. 4 and 5.

As clearly shown in FIGS. 4 and 5, TET1-expressing clones of both tags exhibited significant increases of TET1 transcription (FIG. 5). However, very interestingly, TET1 protein signal detection by western blots only showed TET1 band from the N-terminal FLAG-tagged TET1 clones (FIG. 4). This suggests that a degradation signal for TET1 protein is present at its N-terminal end.

Working Example 4 Expression of the Mutant TET1 Protein: Part 2

According to the results obtained in the Working example 3, the inventors evaluated the stability of the mutant TET1 protein for identifying a sequence involved in destabilization of the TET1 protein as follows.

The N-terminal portion of TET1 protein (about 600 amino acids) were fused through its C-terminus to a GFP resulting a mutant TET1 protein which was expressed in human iPS cells by the aid of Nucleofector. The GFP used in this example (Tag-GFP; Evrogen) has a shorter translation-coloring time lag compared to the conventional GFP which allows a real-time analysis of the appearance-disappearance dynamics of the fused protein.

As shown in FIG. 6, the fused mutant TET1 proteins are, the wild-type TET1 N-terminal portion fused to Tag-GFP (#93), a TET1 protein N-terminal portion in which its second amino acid form the N-terminus (S: serine) has been experimentally switched to G: glycine and then fused to Tag-GFP (#94) and finally, as described in the Working example 3, TET1 N-terminal portion with a stabilizing N-terminal FLAG tag fused to Tag-GFP (#95). These were independently introduced into iPS cells. It was confirmed that all these GFP fluorescence emanating from the fused proteins were discernible within the cell nuclei of the transfected cells. To quantitatively analyze the fluorescent intensities of the individual expression constructs in each cell, human iPS cells expressing each mutant TET1-fusion protein were analyzed by FACS analyses. The results are shown in FIG. 7.

As clearly depicted in FIG. 7, the geometric means of the auto-fluorescence signals of the negative control non-GFP expressing iPS cells was 7.2. The geometric means of the wild-type TET1 N-terminal portion-GFP fusion expressing iPS cells (#93) was 26.3. In contrast and interestingly, the fluorescence intensity jumped up for the fusion protein in which the second amino acid from the N-terminus of TET1 was switched from serine to glycine (signal intensity: 31.6; #94 in FIG. 6). Moreover, as expected from the results shown in the Working example 3, in case where the inventors have replaced the first methionine of the wild-type TET1 by a FLAG tag, the signal intensity was significantly increased (signal internsity: 37.7; #95 in FIG. 6).

Therefore, it was concluded that the second amino acid from its N-terminus, serine, is critical in determining the stability of this protein. According to this result, it would be possible to deduce that the observed enhanced stability of the TET1 protein in the Working examples 3 and 4, where its second amino acid from its N-terminus has been replaced from serine to the second amino acid of a FLAG tag, an aspartate, was operational for this change (for the amino acid sequence of a FLAG tag, refer to SEQ ID NO: 46).

Working Example 5 Analyses of Human iPS Cells Overexpressing the Mutant TET1 Protein (TET1-hiPSC) at their Undifferentiated State

As been shown in the Working example 1, TET1 protein is not normally expressed in the human PSCs which are presumed to be equivalent to an epiblast-like embryonic stage. Therefore, the human iPS cells overexpressing the mutant TET1 protein (TET1-hiPSCs) can be assumed that these cells do not exist during development.

Although it is not shown as a Figure, surprisingly, TET1-hiPSC cultured in KFA medium, when maintained in an undifferentiated state, does not exert any physiological difference such as cell morphology or cell growth when compared to conventional human iPSC which does not express the mutant TET1 protein and is rather identical in appearance. Therefore, the inventors have tried to evaluate the TET1-hiPSC using the expressivities of mRNA for transcription factors which are thought to be strongly correlated with the characteristics of PSCs by RT-PCR. The obtained results are shown as “Day 0” in FIGS. 8 to 23.

As clearly shown in FIG. 8, the level of TET1 mRNA expression in TET1-hiPSC prior to differentiation (Day 0), when compared to the control hiPSC which only expresses the pCAG-IP vector alone, is more than four times and from this, one can deduce that a three-fold expression of the endogenous expression was attained from the transgene expression. Compared to this change, the expression levels of the factors which are believed to correlate to the self-renewality of PSCs at undifferentiated state such as OCT3/4, NANOG or SOX2 mRNA did not significantly differ between hiPSCs with or without TET1-overexpression (FIGS. 11-13; see data at Day 0).

Primed PSCs, which are supposed to be quasi-equivalent to epiblast-stage embryonic cells, are also supposed to have capacities to differentiation toward ectoderm or mesendoderm. To this end, interestingly, the expressivity of ectodermal differentiation markers (markers for neural differentiation: SOX1, NEUROGENIN1, NEUROGENIN2, NEUROD1, ASCL1, PAX6, ZNF521 and OTX2) did not differ between hiPSCs at their undifferentiated states regardless the presence or absence of TET1-overexpression (FIGS. 14-21; refer to Day 0 data).

However, the expression levels of T and SOX17, markers for mesendoderm differentiation, differed significantly between hiPSCs with and without the TET1-overexpression. Whereas hiPSCs, where the mutant TET1 protein is not overexpressed, expressed these markers, TET1-hiPSCs which were maintained in an identical culture condition did hardly express these markers (FIGS. 22 and 23; see the data of Day 0).

It is generally believed that T or SOX17 marks that the cells are already differentiated and in principle, should not be expressed in stem cells which are supposed to be in an undifferentiated state. This is suggestive that in human iPS cells induced in a conventional method over-reacted toward Activin A, which mimics the mesendodermal inducer NODAL activity, and exited from their undifferentiated state to reach mesendodermal cell lineage characteristics. In other words, one can deduce from these facts that the conventional human PSCs bear propensity toward mesendodermal differentiation and in the strict sense of the word, are not “undifferentiated”.

Working Example 6 Validating Neural Inducibility of TET1-hiPSC: Part 1

Evolutionarily conserved phenomena in the early development of vertebrates are that the cell differentiation is set to differentiate toward neural cells by default (default neurogenesis; Levine A J. et al., Dev. Biol., 2007, vol. 308, 247-256). If early developing cells are dissociated in medium which does not have any inductive signaling molecules, the cells are to differentiate toward neurons. Mouse ES cells were known to follow this default neurogenesis rule (Smukler S R. et al, J Cell Biol, 2006, vol. 172, 79-90). The present inventor has also previously developed a protocol to efficiently induce neural cells from mouse ES cells based on this default pathway idea (Bouhon I A. et al, Brain Res Bull, 2005, vol. 68, 62-75). To date, however, the default status of the human PSCs totally remained to be a mystery.

In order to test the differentiation capacity of TET1-hiPSC, similar to a condition which would allow a mouse ES cell to follow the default neurogenesis, the inventors analyzed their differentiation directions. To this end, as previously mentioned, TET1-hiPSC and hiPSC were maintained in parallel in KFA, and then cultured in a developmentally neutral CDM medium for 4 days, followed by a condition where Activin A/Nodal was inhibited for neurogenesis. The default differentiation was followed up to 12 days and cell samples were collected every 4 days to analyze the dynamics of transcription factors' mRNA expression. The results were shown in FIGS. 8 to 23.

During neural differentiation, OCT3/4 and NANOG expression ought to be swiftly down-regulated during the process (Zheng W. et al, Cell Stem Cell, 2012, vol. 10, 440-454). Relevant to this, as clearly shown in FIGS. 11 and 12, during the first four days of differentiation, TET1-overexpression seemed to strongly impact the expressivity of OCT3/4 and NANOG. Especially for NANOG, its expression dropped down below to one-hundredth within the first four days of differentiation in TET1-hiPSCs. In sharp contrast, the conventional human iPSCs (hiPSCs) failed to down-regulate these factor expressions but up-regulated when following the default differentiation. Although not shown in a Figure, in hiPSCs, the OCT3/4 and NANOG expressions went down gradually over a period of one month but to only one-tenth of the original expression values.

As shown in FIG. 13, SOX2 expression in differentiating TET1-hiPSC was gradually up-regulated after the beginning of differentiation induction. SOX2 represents a transcription factor whose expression is observed in the undifferentiated PSC as well as being an essential factor for the development of the nervous systems. Therefore, one can deduce that the consistent expression of SOX2 in TET1-hiPSC during its course of differentiation into the nervous systems might have been a driver for the neural differentiation. Compared to this, in hiPSC, SOX2 expression went down.

Moreover, as clearly shown in FIGS. 14 to 21, we could observe marked up-regulation of neural markers in TET1-hiPSCs (SOX1, NEUROGENIN1, NEUROGENIN2, NEUROD1, ASCL1, PAX6, ZNF521 and OTX2). In contrast, such marker expressivities were not observed for hiPSCs. Especially, the expression of SOX1 in differentiating TET1-hiPSCs at Day 12 of differentiation was 60 times than that of hiPSCs which do not express the TET1 protein. Judging from these, the overexpression of the mutant TET1 into human iPS cells renders these cells 60 times more amenable to neural differentiation.

It is also established that the neurons induced through the default neurogenesis pathway bear the phenotypes of forebrain neurons. In close relation, as shown in FIG. 21, the mutant TET1 protein overexpression clearly allowed a marked induction of the forebrain marker OTX2. This result is therefore supportive of the fact that the mutant TET1 protein overexpression makes the human iPSCs conducive for default neurogenesis toward forebrain neurons.

As mentioned above, TET1 protein overexpression also allowed a swift down-regulation of NANOG. NANOG-down-regulation, not only for swift neural induction, is known to be prerequisites for proper differentiation into multiple cell lineages. Therefore, although here in the Working example 6 we focused on the effects of the mutant TET1 protein during neural (ectodermal) differentiation, the effects of the methods or the proteins in the present invention are not restricted to ectodermal differentiation but have larger impacts as will be shown in the Working examples 8. That is to say that the swift down-regulation of NANOG by the overexpressed TET1 protein is mechanically linked to a release of differentiation resistance and therefore operates in enhancing the pluripotency of the PSCs.

Working Example 7 Validating Neural Inducibility of TET1-hiPSC: Part 2

Here, the inventors have plated down the neural progenitor cells induced in the Working example 6 onto a laminin-coated culture dishes to observe their maturation to neurite-bearing mature neurons. The results are shown in FIGS. 24 and 25.

As clearly shown in FIG. 25, when TET1-hiPSCs were let to differentiate to neurons, a nearly 100% of the cells turned to neurons and no other cells were discernible in the culture. In contrast, from the conventional human iPS cells (hiPSCs), as shown in FIG. 24 by an arrow, although some neuron-aggregates were discernible, the culture became overwhelmed by growing non-neural cells leaving the proportion of neurons in a dish fairly low (FIG. 24).

Working Example 8 Validating TET1-hiPSCs for Endodermal Differentiation

The early mammalian development in its simplified form is a binary cell lineage choice between ectoderm which will eventually diversify into neural or dermal tissues or alternatively mesendoderm which will later diversify into mesoderm (blood, muscle, skeletal tissues) and endoderm (lung, digestive tracts). Therefore, the inventors sought to investigate the differentiation capacity to endoderm by TET1 in addition to its effect to the ectodermal differentiation.

<Endoderm Differentiation of Human iPS Cells>

Among endodermal organs, the pancreas which is related to diabetes mellitus and the liver which is the central organ for metabolism and detoxification have attracted major medical concerns and as a consequence, developments for protocols deriving these organs are under intensive investigation. The inventors have therefore modified a differentiation protocol originally devised for inducing the insulin-secreting pancreatic 13 cells (D'Amour K A, Nat Biotech, 2006, vol. 24, 1392-1401) to execute the differentiation of the definitive endoderm cells.

The modifications made to the original protocol are as follows. The basic medium RPMI used in the paper was replaced to CDM medium which the inventors have used for differentiating neurons; Wnt3a recombinant proteins were replaced with a small molecule compound CHIR99021 which also transduces through the same signaling pathway; and Cyclopamine (a hedgehog signaling antagonist) which was used to derive pancreatic lineages was omitted in the example here. The last modification is expected to orient human iPS cells toward a liver cell lineage instead.

Below, this differentiation method is explained for each stage.

Stage 1: Determination of the Definitive Endoderm (4 Days)

Human iPS cells (human iPS cell line overexpressing the mutant TET1 protein (TET1-hiPSC) and YMhiPSC058sbc6 subclone as described in the Working example 3) were routinely maintained for undifferentiated condition in KFA medium and passaged by trypsin-dissociation. After adequate treatment of trypsin, its activity was stopped using trypsin inhibitor. About 2,000 single cells obtained in this manner were individually seeded into separate non-attaching wells (Nunclon Sphera, Thermo) in CDM medium supplemented with Activin A (100 ng/ml), CHIR99021 (3 μM) and ROCK inhibitor (Y27632; 10 μM) and let them to form cell spheres. 48 hours later, the medium was changed to fresh CDM supplemented with Activin A (100 ng/ml). After another 48 hours, the cells are supposed to be determined to the definitive endoderm stage (stage marker: SOX17).

Stage 2: Primitive Gut Formation (4 Days)

Once using the differentiation procedure, cells which have fixed their cell lineage into endoderm are formed, and these cells are further induced toward the primitive anlage of the digestive organs called primitive gut. The cell spheres collected from the Stage 1 above, are now seeded into CDM supplemented with FGF10 (50 ng/ml). After 4 days of culture, the cells are supposed to differentiate into primitive gut cells (marker: HNF4A).

Stage 3: Foregut Formation (4 Days)

The descendants of the primitive gut form rostrally the thyroid and the lungs and more caudally the digestive organs. Among these, the common ancestors for all digestive organs are the foregut cells. The spheres collected from the Stage 2 will be passed into fresh CDM medium supplemented with FGF10 (50 ng/ml) and all-trans retinoic acid (2 μM) and left for additional 4 days. As a result, cells are supposed to acquire foregut characteristics (marker: FOXA2).

The conventional human iPS cells and TET1-hiPSCs were in parallel processed using the differentiation protocol mentioned above and RNA samples were collected every 4 days. The collected RNAs were used as templates for qPCR to analyze the markers of each differentiation stage described above. Moreover, NANOG expression was also monitored to assess the undifferentiated status of the cells. The obtained results are shown in FIGS. 26 to 29.

The conventionally induced human iPS cells can also be differentiated toward endoderm at least to some degree as shown in FIGS. 26 to 29. In contrast, from the TET1-hiPSCs, we could clearly observe a marked down-regulation of NANOG together with an eminent up-regulation of the endodermal markers (50X17, HNF4A and FOXA2). Collectively from these marker expression analyses, one can deduce that TET1-iPSCs, in comparison to conventionally made iPSCs, have roughly 3-time enhanced differentiation capability toward the endoderm lineages. Therefore, in addition to the enhanced differentiation efficacy for ectoderm as described above, the differentiation efficacy toward endoderm of a PSC can also be enhanced by the introduction of the mutant TET1 protein.

Working Example 9 Validation of the Mutant TET1 Proteins

As described above, the inventors so far have exploited an N-terminal FLAG tagged TET1 protein (full length) as their mutant TET1 protein and observed its effects. Now, they are exploring here for another illustrative embodiment for their mutant TET1 protein which is equally capable of enhancing the differentiation efficacy of PSCs as will be shown below: this alternative embodiment is the first, N-terminal 670 amino acids of the wild-type TET1 where its second amino acid from the N-terminus was changed from serine to glycine and then fused a GFP tag (#94) as shown in FIG. 6.

First, four different human iPS cell lines were prepared as follows.

TET1o/e: YMhiPSC058sbc6 subclone (the mutant TET1 introduced hiPSCs in the Working example 3) which was introduced with the N-terminally FLAG-tagged full length TET1 protein #93: YMhiPSC058sbc subclone which was introduced with the N-terminal 670 amino acids of the wild-type TET1 which is fused to a Tag-GFP protein as shown in FIG. 6 #94: YMhiPSC058sbc subclone which was introduced with the N-terminal 670 amino acids of the wild-type TET1 where its second amino acid from the N-terminus was changed from serine to glycine as shown in FIG. 6 pCAG-IP: YMhiPSC058sbc subclone which was introduced with a mock vector (pCAG-IP) to acquire the antibiotics resistance (serving as control cell line)

As shown in the Working example 3, #93-, #94-, and pCAG-IP were prepared by constructing pCAG-IP vector encoding each mutant TET1 expressing protein or pCAG-IP (mock vector) and introducing them into YMhiPSC058sbc6 subclone cells using Nucleofector, and thereby, drug-resistant clones were collected.

These iPS cell lines were processed according to the aforementioned neural differentiation protocol and marker expression was evaluated for 8 days of differentiation. The results are shown in FIGS. 30 to 32.

As clearly shown in FIGS. 30 to 32, not only the human iPS cell line which has received an N-terminally FLAG-tagged full length TET1 protein (TET10/e) but also the human iPS cell line, which is the alternative embodiment of this invention and was introduced with the N-terminal 670 amino acids of the wild-type TET1 where its second amino acid from the N-terminus was changed from serine to glycine fused to a Tag-GFP protein (#94), equally displayed enhanced differentiation efficacies toward neurons. Therefore, for the enhancement in the differentiation efficacy of PSCs, DNA demethylating activity exerted by the C-terminally situated dioxygenase domain of TET1 is redundant and therefore, we can deduce that DNA-binding ability of the DNA-binding domain which is situated at the N-terminal portion of TET1 is sufficient.

Working Example 10 Validating the Effect of the Mutant TET1 Protein in the Enhancement of the Production Efficacy of iPS Cells

The rates of reprogramming toward iPS cells, especially human ones, are fairly low. Good quality fully-reprogrammed iPS cell, i.e., those forming sharply delimited colonies under microscope observation, lines are practically tough to obtain. Also, it is empirically known that iPSC colonies with said good morphology highly expressed transcription factors (such as OCT3/4 and SOX2) related to pluripotency, and are known to self-renew while maintaining its characteristics.

Therefore, the inventors next investigated whether introducing the mutant TET1 protein of the present invention together with the so-called reprogramming factors to somatic cells for iPS cells induction would enhance the production efficacy of iPS cells using the experiment as follows.

iPSC induction was performed as described above by introducing 6 factors (Oct3/4, Sox2, Klf4, L-MYC, LIN28 and shp53) but using the episomal vector system established by Okita et al. N-terminally FLAG-tagged full length TET1 was introduced into the same vector as used in the system and iPS cells were induced based on the presence or absence thereof.

The resulting iPS cell colonies were observed and their numbers were counted. The result is shown in Table 2. In Table 2, “6 factors” shows the result of iPS cell induction by introducing the above-described 6 factors and “6 factors +Flag-TET1” shows the result of iPS cell induction by introducing the above-described 6 factors plus the mutant TET1 protein of this invention. “Frcs” denotes the number of colonies composed of iPS cells with high quality and “Prcs” denotes the number of colonies composed of iPS cells with low quality. In FIG. 33, we have displayed examples of “Frcs” and “Prcs”.

TABLE 2 vector Frcs Pres 6 factors 10 12 6 factors + Flag-TET1 40 7

As shown in Table 2, compared to the conventional iPS cell induction without TET1, the number of iPS cell colonies significantly increased (from 22 colonies to 47 colonies) by the method of inducing iPS cells in which the TET1 protein of this invention is introduced. Moreover, although the conventional induction method gave equal numbers for Frcs and Prcs, using the iPS induction method of this invention, the inventors could also raise the proportion of Frcs (the proportion of Frcs increased from 10/22 to 40/47).

Collectively, by the method for producing PSCs by introducing the TET1 protein of this invention, it has been shown that it is now possible not only to enhance the differentiation efficacy of the obtained PSCs but also to enhance the production efficacy of such PSCs.

Working Example 11 Evaluation of the Human iPSCs Overexpressing Mutant-TET1 at their Undifferentiated State 2

The inventors further analyzed their mutant-TET1 overexpressing human iPSC (TET1-hiPSC) at its undifferentiated state in terms of its proliferability and by surveying its gene expression profile.

Although not displayed as a figure, TET1-hiPSCs grew for at least 20 passages after its establishment in a stable fashion. Also, when compared with mock-vector-expressing hiPSCs (mv-iPSC), the cells proliferated more slowly (FIG. 34). Moreover, when their cell cycle were analyzed, TET1-iPSCs spent less time in G2 phase but tend to be more in S phase when compared to my-iPSCs (FIG. 35). As shown, TET1-iPSCs were more likely in S phase and less likely in G1/G2/M, a hallmark of a stem cell's cell cycle profile.

Moreover, when the transcriptome of TET1-iPSCs were analyzed globally using DNA microarray, the cells exhibited an expression profile which better fits a primed rather than a naïve stem cell (FIG. 36). For example, albeit the fact that no naïve-ness-related factors were over-represented, DNMT3B and OTX2, both a determinant of primed-ness were over-expressed in TET1-iPSCs. Also, except for increase in the expression of SOX2 and slight decrease in the expression of NANOG, factors which are related to pluripotency did not significantly change between the two cell populations. Although not shown as a figure, culturing the TET1-hiPSCs in LIF did not turn them into a naïve status.

And also, globally viewed, TET1-hiPSC gene expression profile indicated that the cell is more undifferentiated compared to its control mv-iPSC. That is, the overexpression of TET1 was able to significantly decrease the expression of NODAL and its direct target genes (LEFTY1 and LEFTY2) as well as some mesendodermal markers (T, SOX17, MIXL1, EOMES, LHX1, LIM2 and FOXA2). Moreover, the NODAL down-regulation by TET1-introduction was by a factor of 45, contrary to the mesendoderm-differentiation propensity of the conventional hiPSCs without TET1 as show above. Also not shown are quantitative RT-PCR data which confirmed the up-regulation of DNMT3B and the significant down-regulation of mesendodermal factors in TET1-hiPSCs. And, the fact that cancer-related markers (GPC4, GAGE2B and GAGE7) are over-represented in the conventional hiPSCs when compared to TET1-hiPSCs is indicative that the conventional hiPSCs without TET1bear endogenous carcinogenic property (FIG. 36). Although the definitive neuroectodermal marker SOX1 was not expressed in both the TET1-hiPSCs and mv-iPSC, TET1-hiPSCs showed enhanced expression of DNMT3B, SOX2 and OTX2 which may explain their higher differentiation capability toward a neural fate.

Working Example 12 Evaluation of the Transition of the Tet1-Knockdown Mouse ES Cell to the Primed Stage

As described above, by introducing TET1 proteins, it was possible to improve the differentiation potential of human iPS cells. So, the inventors further analyzed in details this aspect of Tet1 function using an in vitro mouse model of naïve-to-primed transition. In other words, according the description of “K. Hayashi, H. Ohta, K. Kurimoto, S. Aramaki, M. Saitou, Cell 146, 519 (Aug. 19, 2011)” and “G. Guo et al., Development 136, 1063 (April, 2009)”, the inventors switched the culture conditions of the naïve mouse ES cells and let the cells proceed to an epiblast-like stage in 48 hours (called EpiLCs) (FIG. 37). In fact, the EpiLCs obtained this way showed increased expression of the primitive ectoderm cell markers Dnmt3b and FgfS, Dnmt3a (FIG. 38) and diminished expression of a battery of naive factors (FIG. 40).

Then, in order to explore the role of Tet1 in establishing pluripotency, short hairpin RNA (shRNA) that targets all the Tet1 transcripts were used to decrease Tet1 expression in the in vitro model system (FIG. 39, please refer to K. Williams et al., Nature 473, 343 (May 19, 2011)).

Upon the knockdown (KD) of Tet1 in mouse ES cells, the expression levels of pluripotency-related marker such as Oct3/4 (Pou5fl), Sox2 and Nanog did not change (data not shown). And for the cell cycle, Tet1-KD ES cells exhibited typical stem-like cell cycle profile, indicating that as previously shown, Tet1 is not important in the self-renewability of the mouse ES cells (K. Williams et al., Nature 473, 343 (May 19, 2011), K. P. Koh et al., Cell Stem Cell 8,200 (Feb. 4, 2011), G. Ficz et al., Nature 473, 398 (May 19, 2011), M. M. Dawlaty et al., Cell Stem Cell 9, 166 M. M. Dawlaty et al., Dev Cell 24, 310 and (Aug. 5, 2011) (Feb. 11, 2013)).

However, Tet1-KD mouse ES cells were unable to transit to the primed EpiLC pluripotent status like untreated cell. Instead, genes which are known to be highly expressed at the primed stage, especially the de novo DNA methyltransferases (Dnmt3a and Dnmt3b) were expressed in significantly lower levels in Tet1-KD EpiLCs (FIGS. 41 to 43).

Moreover, the expression levels of the naïve factors (Nanog, Prdm14, Esrrb, Rex1/Zfp42, Tcl1, Tbx3, Klf2, Klf4 and Stat3) were maintained in Tet1-KD EpiLCs (FIG. 42 and FIG. 40).

Overall, the proteome and transcriptome of the Tet1-KD EpiLCs indicates that the cells expressed markers typical of an earlier developmental stage but also that, without Tet1 expression, mouse ES cells cannot transit to a primed pluripotency anymore within 48 hours.

Moreover, some transcription factors typically expressed in the primitive endoderm (such as Gata6 and Sox17) have been found to be expressed in the Tet1-KD EpiLCs. These signals are normally found in the preimplantation naïve cells of the blastocyst ICM. Furthermore, even when forced to transit to the epiblast (primed stage) by inhibiting the JAK signaling pathway which normally acts in the maintenance of the naïve status, Tet1-KD EpiLCs did not transit to the (epiblast) primitive ectodermal stage 48 hours after induction (FIG. 44).

Working Example 13 TET1 Degradation at the Primed Pluripotency

When analyzed through the transition period of naïve-to-primed, as reported in “S. Ito et al., Nature 466, 1129 (Aug. 26, 2010)”, Tet1 was highly expressed in the undifferentiated mouse ES cells (FIG. 45, FIG. 46 and FIG. 41). Upon transition to a primed stage, albeit that Tet1 mRNA level is maintained, their protein levels went significantly down (FIG. 45, FIG. 46, FIG. 41 and FIG. 42). However, upon applying the proteasome inhibitor MG132 and inhibiting protein degradation, the inventors were now able to detect Tet1 proteins (FIG. 46). In contrast, such regulation of Tet1 protein levels were not observed when the naïve undifferentiated ES cells were used.

As aforementioned, TET1 protein is hardly detectable in human iPSCs and therefore phenotypically, the cells can be supposed to be equivalent to the mouse primed EpiLCs in terms of its protein regulatory dynamics. Moreover, TET1 protein levels in hiPSCs were significantly up-regulated upon MG132 treatment (FIG. 1).

Thus, it became clear that TET1 protein is unable to be stabilized in a primed pluripotent stem cell as much as in a naïve pluripotent stem cell. In addition, the observed down-regulation of Tet1 protein in an in vitro model of development mimicking the naïve-to-primed transition suggests that Tet1 protein is programmed during development to down-regulate its expression during the transition from blastocyst to epiblast.

Working Example 14 Validation of the Effect of Tet1 on Dnmt3 Expressivity

As Tet1 is known to execute demethylation, Tet1-KD mouse ES cells or EpiLCs are anticipated to bear hypermethylated genomes.

However, when the differentially-methylated region (DMR) of a gene of a naïve factor Tcl1 was analyzed, Tet1 loss did not affect the methylation status of the Tcl1-DMR in mouse ES cells. It should be noted that, however, the Tcl1-DMR has been reported as a region which acquires de novo methylation post-implantationally during blastocysts to epiblasts, as a part of a genome-wide methylation process (J. Borgel et al., Nat Genet 42, 1093 (December, 2010)). Furthermore, although the Tcl1 DMR acquired methylation in the process of transition to EpiLCs in control EpiLCs, Tet1-KD EpiLCs remained hypomethylated (FIG. 47).

Therefore, although Tet1 does not seem to directly affect the Tell-DMR methylation status through its demethylating activity, Tet1 expression at a naïve stage seems to affect the expressivity of the de novo DNA methyltransferases (Dnmt3a and Dnmt3b) important for the genome-wide re-methylation in an indirect fashion. In fact, as shown in FIG. 41, the expression levels of the DNA methyltransferases are fairly low in Tet1-KD EpiLCs.

So, the inventors went to look if the observed global hypomethylation and the dysregulation of Dnmt3a/b in the Tet1-KD EpiLCs could be explained by an aberration of the methylation status of Dnmt3b promoter region. The bisulfate sequencing of the supposed DMR of the Dnmt3b showed a hypermethylation at the region-866 to -576 of the transcription start site in Tet1-KD mouse ES cells and therefore this dysregulation seemed to be in accordance with the loss of the Tet1-demethylating activity.

However, this difference in the methylation status was rather subtle and therefore, the inventors went to look at a dioxygenase-independent molecular mechanism.

Prdm14, a naive factor, is known to inhibit the expression of Dnmt3b and to be partly responsible in harnessing the mouse ES cells their pluripotency (Z. Ma, T. Swigut, A. Valouev, A. Rada-Iglesias, J. Wysocka, Nat Struct Mol Biol 18, 120 M. Yamaji et al., Cell Stem Cell 12, 368 and (February, 2011) (Mar. 7, 2013) reference). Therefore, the inventors analyzed Prdm14 expression in the process of naïve-to-primed transition.

As a result, Prdm14 mRNA was observed to be highly expressed at the naïve stage in mouse ES cells but went down upon EpiLC differentiation. However, upon Tet1-KD, Prdm14-down-regulation was attenuated upon EpiLC differentiation (FIG. 40). Tet1 is involved in the down-regulation of Prdm14 expression and as an effect, can be supposed to be involved in the up-regulation of Dnmt3a/b, and moreover, this result concords well with the observed down-regulation of Dnmt3a/b in the Tet1-KD EpiLCs.

Next, the effect of knocking down both Prdm14 and Tet1 (Tet1/Prdm14-double KD) was analyzed in EpiLC for reversal of decreased Dnmt3b expression due to Tet1 loss (FIG. 48).

When compared to Tet1-KD, Tet1/Prdm14-double KD EpiLC expressed higher levels of Otx2, Dnmt3a and Dnmt3b transcripts (all indicators of the primed stage of development) but expressed lower level of the (extraembryonic) primitive endoderm marker Gata6 (FIGS. 49 to 52).

Collectively, the induction of decreased expression of Dnmt3a and Dnmt3b during naïve-to-primed transition of Tet1-KD and the concomitant hypomethylated genome of Tet1-KDEpiLC is suggestive that Tet1 is involved in this process in a dioxygenase-dependent as well as independent manner.

Next, to evaluate the differential contribution of the Dnmt3 isoforms during the naïve-to-primed transition, various Dnmt3 isoforms were introduced into the Tet1-KD cells.

The ectopic expression of Dnmt3a2 into the Tet1-KDs recovered the Otx2 expression level to a similar level of the wild-type cells (FIG. 53). In contrast, Gata6 over-expression observed in the Tet1-KD cells was cancelled upon Dnmt3b ectopic expression (FIG. 54).

Therefore, the inventors concluded that Tet1 was actively responsible for the naïve-to-primed transition of pluripotencies in mouse ES cells through its regulation of Dnmt3a/b.

As aforementioned in the Working examples 1 to 9 and 11, by introducing a mutant TET1 protein where its second amino acid from the N-terminus was replaced from its wild-type amino acid into human PSCs, it was made clear that it is possible now to drastically enhance their differentiation efficacies. Furthermore, it was made clear that to drastically enhance their differentiation efficacies of human PSCs by expressing the mutant TET1 protein in human PSCs where normal TET1 protein is actively degraded. Moreover, by this enhancement of the differentiation efficacy of the PSCs, it has been shown that it is possible to resolve the differentiation biases inherent to the conventional human iPS cells (for example, the differentiation propensity toward the mesendoderm shown in the Working example 5). Moreover, such enhancement of the differentiation efficacy has been proven to be achievable by using a mutant TET1 protein where its second amino acid from its N-terminus has been replaced and also where its dioxygenase region has been deleted. Therefore, one can deduce from this result that the DNA demethylating activity exerted by the dioxygenase region of TET1 is redundant and that the DNA-binding domain of TET1 protein is sufficient for such effects.

Moreover, as shown in the Working example 10, by this invention, it is now possible not only to enhance the differentiation efficacy of a given PSC but also to enhance the production efficacy of such PSC.

As mentioned previously, TET1 protein is expressed throughout from the fertilized egg to the blastocyst in the naive embryonic cells. This fact, in combination with the discovery of this invention that TET1 protein is not expressed in primed human PSCs, together with the differentiation efficacy enhancing effect of introducing the mutant TET1 into such PSCs, strongly suggests that TET1 protein's function is to facilitate the transition of the naive blastocyst to the primed epiblast in early development and further toward differentiation into each germ lineages. Actually, as described in Examples 12 to 14, the present invention revealed that a TET1 protein actively led mouse ES cells from the naive stage to the primed pluripotent stage by controlling the expressions of Dnmt3a/b.

Therefore, TET1 protein functions as a lubricant for cell differentiation in general, or in other words, TET1 harnesses the robustness for the development to proceed. It is therefore strongly suggested that the observed effect of the TET1 protein on the enhancement of differentiation efficacy of PSCs is a consequence of an increase of robustness for differentiation.

INDUSTRIAL APPLICABILITY

As explained so far, the introduction of the mutant TET1 protein not only swiftly down-regulates the differentiation resistant factor NANOG but also, can enhance cell differentiation efficacy by up-regulating factors which actively promote cell differentiation.

The TET1 proteins and the methods for producing pluripotent stem cells which utilize these TET1 proteins of this invention are superior in that they can release the PSCs from the differentiation resistance by NANOG or differentiation propensities exhibited by endoderm/mesoderm marker T and SOX17 expression and allow one to obtain only the desired cell type at high efficacy. Therefore, this invention is useful in regenerative medicine, drug discovery and reproductive medicine where the supplies of various cell types, tissues or organs are strongly desired.

[Sequence Listing Free Text] SEQ ID NOs: 7 to 44

<223> artificially synthesized primer sequences

SEQ ID NOs: 45 and 46

<223> sequences of FLAG tag 

1. A method for producing pluripotent stem cells with enhanced differentiation efficacies, comprising: introducing at least one molecule selected from the group consisting of (a) to (c) into pluripotent stem cells (PSCs) or somatic cells which are to be induced toward PSCs; (a) TET1 protein, (b) a nucleic acid that encodes TET1 protein, and (c) a vector into which a nucleic acid that encodes TET1 protein has been inserted.
 2. The method of claim 1, wherein said TET1 protein is a mutant TET1 protein which has enhanced stability as compared to a wild type TET1 protein.
 3. The method of claim 2, wherein said mutant TET1 protein is a mutant TET1 protein in which the second amino acid from the N-terminus differs from that of the wild-type TET1.
 4. The method of claim 2, wherein said mutant TET1 protein lacks its dioxygenase domain.
 5. The method of claim 1, wherein said TET1 protein is a protein consisting of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 2, 4 or
 6. 6. A mutant TET1 protein which has enhanced stability as compared to a wild type TET1 protein.
 7. The protein of claim 6, wherein the second amino acid from the N-terminus differs from the wild-type TET1's second amino acid from the N-terminus.
 8. The protein of claim 7, which lacks its dioxygenase domain.
 9. A protein consisting of the amino acid sequence of SEQ ID NO: 4 or
 6. 10. A nucleic acid encoding the protein as described in claim
 6. 11. A vector into which the nucleic acid of claim 10 has been inserted.
 12. A pluripotent stem cell (PSC) or somatic cell which is to be induced toward PSC into which at least one molecule selected from the group consisting of (a) to (c) has been introduced; (a) TET1 protein, (b) a nucleic acid that encodes TET1 protein, and (c) a vector into which a nucleic acid that encodes TET1 protein has been inserted.
 13. The method of claim 3, wherein said mutant TET1 protein lacks its dioxygenase domain.
 14. The method of claim 3, wherein said mutant TET1 protein is a mutant TET1 protein in which the second amino acid from the N-terminus is glycine.
 15. The method of claim 4, wherein said dioxygenase domain consists of amino acids 1611 to 2074 in SEQ ID NO: 2, amino acids 1640 to 2103 in SEQ ID NO: 4 or amino acids 809 to 1272 in SEQ ID NO:
 6. 16. The method of claim 13, wherein said dioxygenase domain consists of amino acids 1611 to 2074 in SEQ ID NO: 2, amino acids 1640 to 2103 in SEQ ID NO: 4 or amino acids 809 to 1272 in SEQ ID NO:
 6. 17. The method of claim 2, wherein said mutant TET1 protein is a TET1 protein in which one or plural amino acids have been inserted between the first and the second amino acids of the N-terminus of the wild type TET1 protein or a TET1 protein in which one or plural amino acids have been added to the N-terminus of the wild type TET1 protein. 